Wow,
I have read some more of Richard's book. Initially it enthuses me as much as Jane Plant's book, though it emphasises American eating rather than the UK. He claims one can cut 70% of US cancers by lifestyle changes. This does assume stopping smoking, it drops to 40% for idle, or 30% for fit non smokers. But these figures are still ten times the effectiveness of chemotherapy against simple breast cancer. He has authority as a university professor / medical researcher with MD and PhD.
There is a freely downloadable audio MP3 of him talking here that runs to 49 mins. Sorry, it has many commercials, but it is free! And I love Professor Richard Beliveau's french accent.
He disagrees with the NHS. They state Jan's cancer will be cured by their treatment and taking a pill for 5 years. Richard suggests it is an incurable chronic disease that needs lifetime eating and lifestyle changes. Being french he makes this sound like enjoyable drinking small amounts of red wine, and eating well cooked mediterranean quality foods, garlic and chocolate.
This work contrasts to our NHS. I checked again at the NHS sites today, and see that they are running a trial starting this year to look at effects of diet after breast cancer. I quote "f you are in group 2 you will not take part in the exercise programme or have any dietary advice from the researchers during the first 24 weeks of the study. They will give you a booklet about healthy eating, produced by the British Nutrition Foundation. And they will ask you to live your life as normal. After 24 weeks, they will offer you some advice about diet and exercise sessions."
How can a Canadian professor and Jane Plant have proven to my satisfaction the link to diet, yet the NHS are still trialling it? How can we call this research? Why not just read Richard and Jane's books? How can anyone who has had breast cancer be so unaware as to live for 24 weeks without changing their diet?
Richard's site is here, in French or English!
One thing that struck me maybe as God's amazing provision was the delivery of this book just 6 days before Jan starts radiotherapy. On page 177 he suggests that eating curry whilst taking green tea may significantly increase the effectiveness of radiotherapy in killing cancer cells. What timing! I will suggest she stops deodorant, and eats curry and garlic during radiotherapy! Pity the fellow passengers on the train.
Richard's link to curcumin, the spice in indian curries led me to this site. Amazing that there are proven techniques to increase the effectiveness of radiotherapy against cancer whilst minimising the damage done to the body. Why do our NHS not mention it?????
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Complexities of a cancer beating diet
Professor Richard Beliveau's book "Foods that fight cancer" arrived today. Shame I used eBay rather than Amazon to get it cheaper, waited 10 days instead of Amazon''s typical two or three days.
On initial inspection it seems too trivial for me......probably a quarter of the pages are full colour pictures, such as a lemon, an orange and a fish, typical Dorling Kindersley. The chapter on green tea suggests it is good for the soul! The back cover claims it is "the one book you shouldn't be without". Give me university papers any day!
I will read with interest, it gives the chemical formulae of many vegetable phytochemicals, and on inspection it matches other sensible research I have read from major universities. I looks in some detail at Eastern diets and their lower cancer rates which matches Jane Plant. Definitely not one for quackwatch so far! It also has recipes and says red wine has anti cancer properties which should make it popular!
But on reflection it is a popularist book as one would expect from Dorling Kindersley, it will not upset anyone in contrast to Jane Plant. I read newsgroup hatred of Jane's ideas yesterday. She says cut dairy, processed foods and alcohol. This book demands no sacrifices, recommends alcohol in moderation, makes no mention of dairy or IGF, and recommends chocolate. But I suspect it will be more use to many readers than Jane's more complex arguments.
I am sure a change to well balanced vegetable based diet cutting red and particularly burnt or processed meat will help. Smoking and alcohol are out for us. I said yesterday Jan could lose 15% lung capacity after radiotherapy, obviously if lungs have been damaged already by smoking that loss would be far more serious.
On alcohol, we have American research suggesting 2 units of alcohol a day increases risk of breast cancer by 32%, whereas our booklet from Europe's biggest cancer hospital, the Royal Marsden says up to 2 units is OK. So at a stroke they have given away the total benefit from a course of the dangerous drug Tamoxifen that Jan is starting, and which would cost the NHS £3000 over 5 years!
The complexities of a cancer beating diet strike us. A University professor from UCSF rates fibre as important, whereas a similarly qualified professor in the UK says cut dairy. But on more careful study one is pre and the other post menopausal. I believe the fibre is more important for pre-menopause, it shows the complexity of the issues.
Jane Plant looks at reduced cancer rates in China, and says more soy and cutting dairy are the cause, I look at Poland which has similarly lower cancer rates, have yet to do research, but have a hunch their dietary effect is from lightly cooked or raw cruciferous vegetables and exercise. The Polish gene pool is probably closer to ours in the UK, so I still favour my ideas!
I read conflicting results as to whether soy helps or hinders. Some suggest it could be that Chinese soy is different from the processed and potentially GM modified soy we eat. I believe it could depend upon cancer type because more scientific data shows that phytoestrogens enhance T47D cell cancer growth rates in post menopausal women by blocking the effects of Tamoxifen, yet reduce growth of MCF-7 cancer. All we know is Jan's cancer is ER+, and both MCF-7 and T47D are typical ER+ cancers. So we don't know whether the phytoestrogens Jan had been eating in red clover and has now stopped helped or hindered.
I read in March 2008 US research that cruciferous vegetables have more or less benefit dependent upon ones genetic makeup. Yet the UCSF professor and this new book rave about the benefits of cruciferous veggies such as cabbage.
Wow, one starts to see the oomplexity of these issues. A friend suggested yesterday I might like to take a trip to China to help run a 2 week course to help them learn English. Maybe I should go to see how easily the Chinese lifestyle cuts breast cancer without any need for understanding, one just lives in China!
On initial inspection it seems too trivial for me......probably a quarter of the pages are full colour pictures, such as a lemon, an orange and a fish, typical Dorling Kindersley. The chapter on green tea suggests it is good for the soul! The back cover claims it is "the one book you shouldn't be without". Give me university papers any day!
I will read with interest, it gives the chemical formulae of many vegetable phytochemicals, and on inspection it matches other sensible research I have read from major universities. I looks in some detail at Eastern diets and their lower cancer rates which matches Jane Plant. Definitely not one for quackwatch so far! It also has recipes and says red wine has anti cancer properties which should make it popular!
But on reflection it is a popularist book as one would expect from Dorling Kindersley, it will not upset anyone in contrast to Jane Plant. I read newsgroup hatred of Jane's ideas yesterday. She says cut dairy, processed foods and alcohol. This book demands no sacrifices, recommends alcohol in moderation, makes no mention of dairy or IGF, and recommends chocolate. But I suspect it will be more use to many readers than Jane's more complex arguments.
I am sure a change to well balanced vegetable based diet cutting red and particularly burnt or processed meat will help. Smoking and alcohol are out for us. I said yesterday Jan could lose 15% lung capacity after radiotherapy, obviously if lungs have been damaged already by smoking that loss would be far more serious.
On alcohol, we have American research suggesting 2 units of alcohol a day increases risk of breast cancer by 32%, whereas our booklet from Europe's biggest cancer hospital, the Royal Marsden says up to 2 units is OK. So at a stroke they have given away the total benefit from a course of the dangerous drug Tamoxifen that Jan is starting, and which would cost the NHS £3000 over 5 years!
The complexities of a cancer beating diet strike us. A University professor from UCSF rates fibre as important, whereas a similarly qualified professor in the UK says cut dairy. But on more careful study one is pre and the other post menopausal. I believe the fibre is more important for pre-menopause, it shows the complexity of the issues.
Jane Plant looks at reduced cancer rates in China, and says more soy and cutting dairy are the cause, I look at Poland which has similarly lower cancer rates, have yet to do research, but have a hunch their dietary effect is from lightly cooked or raw cruciferous vegetables and exercise. The Polish gene pool is probably closer to ours in the UK, so I still favour my ideas!
I read conflicting results as to whether soy helps or hinders. Some suggest it could be that Chinese soy is different from the processed and potentially GM modified soy we eat. I believe it could depend upon cancer type because more scientific data shows that phytoestrogens enhance T47D cell cancer growth rates in post menopausal women by blocking the effects of Tamoxifen, yet reduce growth of MCF-7 cancer. All we know is Jan's cancer is ER+, and both MCF-7 and T47D are typical ER+ cancers. So we don't know whether the phytoestrogens Jan had been eating in red clover and has now stopped helped or hindered.
I read in March 2008 US research that cruciferous vegetables have more or less benefit dependent upon ones genetic makeup. Yet the UCSF professor and this new book rave about the benefits of cruciferous veggies such as cabbage.
Wow, one starts to see the oomplexity of these issues. A friend suggested yesterday I might like to take a trip to China to help run a 2 week course to help them learn English. Maybe I should go to see how easily the Chinese lifestyle cuts breast cancer without any need for understanding, one just lives in China!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
God is sovereign
This picture is a colour enhanced scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of a breast cancer cell. Shows that even though we hate cancer it has a certain beauty.....It is also to show I do read scientific research, not quack health food fads. One can see it is invasive cancer, like Jan's...
Even worse, I read that one needs a clump of about a million such cells before they are visible to a CT scanner, or even more to be seen by mammogram or ultrasound. Hence some of the uncertainty in Jan's prognosis and treatment, she could have a 1 to 500,000 cell tumour remaining yet be pronounced clear.
I am still thinking about scams and quackery so read with interest the NHS online site that gives Jan the well publicised 80% chance of 5 year survival, but this drops to 70% if one looks for 10 years, and I know the 15 year prognosis of 50% that the NHS do not publicise. Yet the NHS talk of this as a cure, and have not mentioned the cancer risk from radiotherapy which typically occurs 12 years afterwards, nor that Jan could lose 15% lung capacity.
I also read about Tamoxifen, the hormone drug that Jan is on and the NHS say is stopping Jan's cancer recurring! From CNN: "the effects of hormone therapy may be limited. Most advanced hormone-sensitive cancers eventually become resistant to hormone treatment and find ways to thrive". Or Swedish research that states "These treatments are effective but patients inevitably develop hormone-resistant, invasive tumors."
Where is the quackery, in alternative medicine where Jane Plant has already survived for 20 years, or in the NHS? To be fair I do not accuse the NHS of quackery, but their statistics are in my opinion less accurate than those of sensible diet advocates such as Jane Plant.
I re read Michael Baughen's book on prayer, "Getting through to God", and got my perspective back on the sovereignty of God, how he is in control of our lives, and that death is not necessarily a failure.
He makes an interesting summary in his first chapter comparing similar incidents, and the different results:
- Paul escapes an ambush (Acts chapter 23) yet Stephen is stoned to death (Act chapter 7)
- Peter escapes from prison (Acts chapter 12) yet John the Baptist is beheaded in prison (Mark 6)
- The lame are healed by Peter (Acts chapter 3) yet Epaphroditus nearly dies from illness (Philippians chapter 2 verse 26)
- Paul raises the dead to life (Acts chapter 20) yet leaves Trophimus behind at Miletus as he is too sick to travel (2 Tomothy chapter 4 verse 20)
- James chapter 5 says "prayer of faith will save the sick" whereas Timothy is told to take a little wine for his frequent stomach ailments (1 Timothy chapter 5 verse 23)
- Jesus stills a storm (Mark chapter 4) yet Paul is shipwrecked (Acts chapter 27)
So we need ot trust in God's love, over riding compassion and goodness no matter how he answers our prayers.
An RAF chaplain once asked a pilot who was walking across the runway "Do you pray?" Yes, of course. he replied. Well Ive never seen you at my chapel services. No, Padre. I only pray when I'm flying. When I am on the ground I can cope.
Like the RAF pilot cancer has forced us back onto God
Monday, April 28, 2008
Quacks and quackery
I am still trying to work out whether the diet and lifestyle ideas of Professor Jane Plant are correct. It is a source of friction between Jan and me. I think we are both slowly coming round towards Jane's views, our shopping bill has doubled as we eat more fresh fruit and veg, I've cut milk from tea, and there are two packs of green tea in the larder.
Jan has taken a week away to the coast as we await radiotherapy whilst I supervise building work. To start her holiday she had fish and chips followed by ice cream, and a beef joint the next day. So she still has some way to go before she becomes a full veggie, and neither of us know what a vegan is! But our fish and chips was three times our normal price, as we went for double the fish and a third the chips!
Today the Guardian newspaper carried a warning against DIY cancer cures.... I read with care, but I find it makes me mad. The government want to present that "they know best", yet my comment yesterday on Cavilon hopefully shows that even when presented with reputable evidence from trials funded by an NHS approved major health supplier (3M) and performed in the USA and Australia our team dismiss their findings in favour of what they have always done. I think it proves they do not always know best if they ignore peer reviewed scientific trials of superior treatment.
The latest news yesterday warned that cancer sufferers are at increased risk from websites selling unproven cures that could wreck the remaining months of their life. The controversy centres on a drug called DCA (dichloroacetate), a chemical being promoted and hyped across the world as a cure for cancer after news of preliminary laboratory tests on rats.
Dr Ian Gibson, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, warned that increasing numbers of British people were purchasing such products, and urged the government to do all it could to highlight the problem and block sales from the websites. Their arrogance.
So I looked at Quackwatch, its name sounded helpful, but the doctor running the site is a retired psychiatrist, so I rate the site as useless. It rates diet as questionable. To quote:
"Today's questionable methods include plant products, special diets and "dietary supplements". The dangers of using questionable treatments include delay in getting appropriate treatment, decreased quality of life, direct physical harm, interference with proven treatment, waste of valuable time, financial harm, and psychological damage."
It makes me mad......it states "The dangers of using questionable treatments include delay in getting appropriate treatment." Yet our NHS botched Jan's WGL surgery, lost Jan's test results for 68 days, inserted someone else's mammogram in Jan's records, refused to tell us how many lymph nodes they had removed, lost records that Jan was a patient on their booking system, then have a 10 week delay for radiotherapy when their guidelines suggest it should be four weeks maximum. Just who causes delay and psychological harm in Jan's case?
And from an American site:
"The prevalence of use of questionable cancer methods was nine percent overall. An increase in use was directly proportional to increased income and education. Prolonged illness and certain types of cancer were more commonly associated with use.
Important discrepancies were found between patients' and physicians' perceptions of questionable therapies. CONCLUSIONS: While some questionable therapies are harmless or inexpensive, others have toxic effects and may be costly, and none have scientifically proven efficacy."
So why is it that use was directly proportional to education? Could it just possibly be that bright people understand statistics and real science, and can see through unscientific government hype? I do read the scientific papers looking at long term mortality over 5, 10, and 15 years, not just local recurrence. I wrote earlier that the government website to allow patients to choose between hospitals details car parking and disabled access, but ignores cure and death rates...whereas the alternative clinics freely publish their auditable data of cures, follow up and deaths.
Jane Plant who advocates diet is a Professor with a PhD in science from London University, more scientifically qualified than most politicians trying to block our access to DCA. It's not that I want DCA, its just I hate government arrogance and stupidity in denying benefits from diet
Jan has taken a week away to the coast as we await radiotherapy whilst I supervise building work. To start her holiday she had fish and chips followed by ice cream, and a beef joint the next day. So she still has some way to go before she becomes a full veggie, and neither of us know what a vegan is! But our fish and chips was three times our normal price, as we went for double the fish and a third the chips!
Today the Guardian newspaper carried a warning against DIY cancer cures.... I read with care, but I find it makes me mad. The government want to present that "they know best", yet my comment yesterday on Cavilon hopefully shows that even when presented with reputable evidence from trials funded by an NHS approved major health supplier (3M) and performed in the USA and Australia our team dismiss their findings in favour of what they have always done. I think it proves they do not always know best if they ignore peer reviewed scientific trials of superior treatment.
The latest news yesterday warned that cancer sufferers are at increased risk from websites selling unproven cures that could wreck the remaining months of their life. The controversy centres on a drug called DCA (dichloroacetate), a chemical being promoted and hyped across the world as a cure for cancer after news of preliminary laboratory tests on rats.
Dr Ian Gibson, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, warned that increasing numbers of British people were purchasing such products, and urged the government to do all it could to highlight the problem and block sales from the websites. Their arrogance.
So I looked at Quackwatch, its name sounded helpful, but the doctor running the site is a retired psychiatrist, so I rate the site as useless. It rates diet as questionable. To quote:
"Today's questionable methods include plant products, special diets and "dietary supplements". The dangers of using questionable treatments include delay in getting appropriate treatment, decreased quality of life, direct physical harm, interference with proven treatment, waste of valuable time, financial harm, and psychological damage."
It makes me mad......it states "The dangers of using questionable treatments include delay in getting appropriate treatment." Yet our NHS botched Jan's WGL surgery, lost Jan's test results for 68 days, inserted someone else's mammogram in Jan's records, refused to tell us how many lymph nodes they had removed, lost records that Jan was a patient on their booking system, then have a 10 week delay for radiotherapy when their guidelines suggest it should be four weeks maximum. Just who causes delay and psychological harm in Jan's case?
And from an American site:
"The prevalence of use of questionable cancer methods was nine percent overall. An increase in use was directly proportional to increased income and education. Prolonged illness and certain types of cancer were more commonly associated with use.
Important discrepancies were found between patients' and physicians' perceptions of questionable therapies. CONCLUSIONS: While some questionable therapies are harmless or inexpensive, others have toxic effects and may be costly, and none have scientifically proven efficacy."
So why is it that use was directly proportional to education? Could it just possibly be that bright people understand statistics and real science, and can see through unscientific government hype? I do read the scientific papers looking at long term mortality over 5, 10, and 15 years, not just local recurrence. I wrote earlier that the government website to allow patients to choose between hospitals details car parking and disabled access, but ignores cure and death rates...whereas the alternative clinics freely publish their auditable data of cures, follow up and deaths.
Jane Plant who advocates diet is a Professor with a PhD in science from London University, more scientifically qualified than most politicians trying to block our access to DCA. It's not that I want DCA, its just I hate government arrogance and stupidity in denying benefits from diet
Friday, April 25, 2008
Do the NHS miss the best?
I earlier said Jan's radiologist had given her advice that was not in her best interest.
There is a product named Cavilon that helps protect against damage to the skin during radiotherapy. I can find trials for its use in Australia, South Africa, USA, and even references in our NHS at Leeds and Bath. Yet when we twice ask can we use it the answer is NO. They prefer their traditional moisturising cream....
Jan's radiologist seems unaware of such developments, even though the Australian trial started in 2004. How come I can find it with a simple Google search yet our NHS radiologist is unaware of it? Just as they were unaware of the PRIME radiotherapy trial which could cut the need for any radiotherapy for people like Jan. This is a trial that my taxes are funding, why cannot we even be aware of the possible benefits?
I despair......80% or folk get skin reactions to radiotherapy, yet our team are unaware of this treatment, which cuts the incidence of some cases by 33% from trial data to date. Is 33% not worth it?
Yesterday Jan's friend who has now completed radiotherapy phoned. Her skin continues to deteriorate, and is so bad her doctors reckon she will need to be off work until 23 June. Yes, it doesn't stop deteriorating once radiotherapy ceases. So another 8 weeks loss of pay and work from her, when Cavilon costs less than £12 a bottle. Is it the cost of Cavilon hits the NHS budget, whereas 8 weeks loss of pay does not?
For more info on Cavilon see my post dated April 1st, where I link to photographic evidence.
I will willing to pay for Cavilon myself, and have no links to 3M, the makers of Cavilon. This is not a commercial! Yet does it illustrate a more serious underlying problem?
Cavilon is not a quack product with unscientific claims unlike so many health food remedies. It is made by 3M, the makers of Post it notes amongst other plastic products. 3M already supply to the NHS. Their research is done by university professors. If radiologists at one of the top NHS hospitals are unaware of this, would they also be unaware of important breakthroughs in cancer treatment and care, such as may have been found by Professor Jane Plant?
Can we trust their dietary advice? Would they recognise a better treatment if it was available?
There is a product named Cavilon that helps protect against damage to the skin during radiotherapy. I can find trials for its use in Australia, South Africa, USA, and even references in our NHS at Leeds and Bath. Yet when we twice ask can we use it the answer is NO. They prefer their traditional moisturising cream....
Jan's radiologist seems unaware of such developments, even though the Australian trial started in 2004. How come I can find it with a simple Google search yet our NHS radiologist is unaware of it? Just as they were unaware of the PRIME radiotherapy trial which could cut the need for any radiotherapy for people like Jan. This is a trial that my taxes are funding, why cannot we even be aware of the possible benefits?
I despair......80% or folk get skin reactions to radiotherapy, yet our team are unaware of this treatment, which cuts the incidence of some cases by 33% from trial data to date. Is 33% not worth it?
Yesterday Jan's friend who has now completed radiotherapy phoned. Her skin continues to deteriorate, and is so bad her doctors reckon she will need to be off work until 23 June. Yes, it doesn't stop deteriorating once radiotherapy ceases. So another 8 weeks loss of pay and work from her, when Cavilon costs less than £12 a bottle. Is it the cost of Cavilon hits the NHS budget, whereas 8 weeks loss of pay does not?
For more info on Cavilon see my post dated April 1st, where I link to photographic evidence.
I will willing to pay for Cavilon myself, and have no links to 3M, the makers of Cavilon. This is not a commercial! Yet does it illustrate a more serious underlying problem?
Cavilon is not a quack product with unscientific claims unlike so many health food remedies. It is made by 3M, the makers of Post it notes amongst other plastic products. 3M already supply to the NHS. Their research is done by university professors. If radiologists at one of the top NHS hospitals are unaware of this, would they also be unaware of important breakthroughs in cancer treatment and care, such as may have been found by Professor Jane Plant?
Can we trust their dietary advice? Would they recognise a better treatment if it was available?
Parish Nursing - good christian links
Having said in the previous post that I would rather see eminent scientists guiding the NHS instead of Joan Saddler, what is the role of the church with the sick?
I attend a church that is pioneering Parish Nursing in the UK.
I was introduced to the chaplain of the hospice at the hospital treating Jan. She had a strong faith, and wanted to see the NHS more willing to cry "enough" and pass dying patients over to her hospice rather than the typical 8 hours before their death. Thinks, would government stats rate the hospice as poor, as many of their patients died within 8 hours of arriving, or good because of their low budget for food!
On a more serious and positive note I liked the American Elmbrook Church resources. I have used their audio archive of the Briscoe's teaching many times. Stuart Briscoe was a banker in England, so he and his wife Jill Briscoe have UK connections. I am humbled by the breadth and quality of their resources. They have a disability ministry, honestly, I am not against them! This church resource covers prayer and cancer so well that I printed it out for Jan. It is written by Dianne, a lady who has survived breast cancer for 8 years. She worked in the medical imaging department of a major hospital so mixes Christian faith with sound medicine and personal experience. She says:
"My eight plus years of prayer since cancer came have left me feeling insulated. Again, look up, not around. I daily look to God first. I thank him for each day, and ask him what his will is for me. Again he has answered, by getting me to reorder my priorities. I have started doing some new things (for instance this ministry), and stopped doing others. I also ask him how he wants me to do the things he has given me to do. For instance, what to teach my two sons. And we talk more about God and life and truth. I am affected far less by things "around" me. I look "up", and I have joy and peace I could not have imagined. Prayer is answered. I am so thankful."
I attend a church that is pioneering Parish Nursing in the UK.
I was introduced to the chaplain of the hospice at the hospital treating Jan. She had a strong faith, and wanted to see the NHS more willing to cry "enough" and pass dying patients over to her hospice rather than the typical 8 hours before their death. Thinks, would government stats rate the hospice as poor, as many of their patients died within 8 hours of arriving, or good because of their low budget for food!
On a more serious and positive note I liked the American Elmbrook Church resources. I have used their audio archive of the Briscoe's teaching many times. Stuart Briscoe was a banker in England, so he and his wife Jill Briscoe have UK connections. I am humbled by the breadth and quality of their resources. They have a disability ministry, honestly, I am not against them! This church resource covers prayer and cancer so well that I printed it out for Jan. It is written by Dianne, a lady who has survived breast cancer for 8 years. She worked in the medical imaging department of a major hospital so mixes Christian faith with sound medicine and personal experience. She says:
"My eight plus years of prayer since cancer came have left me feeling insulated. Again, look up, not around. I daily look to God first. I thank him for each day, and ask him what his will is for me. Again he has answered, by getting me to reorder my priorities. I have started doing some new things (for instance this ministry), and stopped doing others. I also ask him how he wants me to do the things he has given me to do. For instance, what to teach my two sons. And we talk more about God and life and truth. I am affected far less by things "around" me. I look "up", and I have joy and peace I could not have imagined. Prayer is answered. I am so thankful."
The curse of political meddling
I struggle to work out why if Jane Plant has an answer or more useful treatment for cancer how is it that our NHS have missed such treatment? Surely our "National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) or NHS Healthcare Commission should lead our hospitals and doctors to the best practice .....but will they when they seem obsessed by equal opportunities and political correctness? I despair at the political meddling in the NHS.
As Jan has cancer we are looking for good treatment, and if not a cure maybe the best possible odds or longest survival. Jan's odds are good for a cancer, but without cancer she would have had a mean life expectancy of another 25 years, the cancer has dropped that by 10 years. I think we can restore some of those lost 10 years by diet and or lifestyle changes.
So I use the Internet. 95% of the sites quickly lead to crack pot ideas from cranks. But I place enormous value on respected universities and professional sites. Before we chose Jan's treatment we looked at statistics by county in the UK, looked at hospital websites, and the CVs of the two consultants who are treating Jan. Their CVs cannot be faulted, just a shame Jan has yet to meet the oncologist, we have only seen her registrar and houseman, and the surgeon failed to turn up at our last appointment.
What if I look at government sites.... after all this year's mantra is patient choice and involvement under PPI. The government run an online hospital comparison site.....just like those that get best value car insurance. I compare the 2 hospitals we have been offered for Jan's radiotherapy, and look for info such as death and cure. NOTHING.
So what do I find. One hospital is satisfactory, the other weak.... but why, did they offer less cures, more deaths or what? I am not told, just it failed to meet one financial target so was automatically rated as weak. I guess the most likely reason is they worked flat out relieving suffering, so treated and cured more sick folk, had shorter waiting lists, and spent more on staff fees and medicines. To the government stats that is weak performance, to me it is praiseworthy!
What else does the government comparison site tell me? The hospital scored 79 out of 100, because it had facilities such as an induction loop, signing for the deaf, car parking, and disability access. It seems not to matter if they cured or killed.
So I look at the new NHS patient and public involvement known as PPI. Joan Saddler OBE has been appointed by the government to revitalise PPI. How did she come to be so involved in the National Health Service? A far as I can see she is a political activist, her contribution so far has been in women's and ethnic minority equality issues and in singing with the London Adventist Chorale.
At an interview Joan Saddler said: “I am very pleased to accept this exciting new role. I am passionate about community engagement and look forward to working with groups across the NHS, so that patients and the public are true partners in the delivery and improvement of healthcare"
Why do we need to consult with the public over all issues? Surely developing cancer treatment needs some scientific training, just under half the members of the public are below average intelligence and lack such training. Why concentrate on access by minority groups or the disabled when what we need first of all is effective treatment for anyone. Personally I would rather see an eminent scientist heading such work.
My GP is similarly hamstrung by government targets, in my case to have no-one waiting more than 48 hours for an appointment. Why????? I book a holiday 6 months ahead, why should I not book a non urgent appointment with a doctor more than 48 hours ahead? But Tony Blair stated I must not.
When I phoned one afternoon for a non urgent appointment to see a doctor say within the next week, maybe even at the start or end of a day to save excessive interruption to my work, I was told that was impossible, it would breach the targets. I must phone again the next day at the 08:30 scrum, and keep dialing the normally engaged number until I got through to book an emergency appointment. As a fit man I can do that, but could a weak bedridden person keep dialing?
I despair of our NHS with this present government control.
As Jan has cancer we are looking for good treatment, and if not a cure maybe the best possible odds or longest survival. Jan's odds are good for a cancer, but without cancer she would have had a mean life expectancy of another 25 years, the cancer has dropped that by 10 years. I think we can restore some of those lost 10 years by diet and or lifestyle changes.
So I use the Internet. 95% of the sites quickly lead to crack pot ideas from cranks. But I place enormous value on respected universities and professional sites. Before we chose Jan's treatment we looked at statistics by county in the UK, looked at hospital websites, and the CVs of the two consultants who are treating Jan. Their CVs cannot be faulted, just a shame Jan has yet to meet the oncologist, we have only seen her registrar and houseman, and the surgeon failed to turn up at our last appointment.
What if I look at government sites.... after all this year's mantra is patient choice and involvement under PPI. The government run an online hospital comparison site.....just like those that get best value car insurance. I compare the 2 hospitals we have been offered for Jan's radiotherapy, and look for info such as death and cure. NOTHING.
So what do I find. One hospital is satisfactory, the other weak.... but why, did they offer less cures, more deaths or what? I am not told, just it failed to meet one financial target so was automatically rated as weak. I guess the most likely reason is they worked flat out relieving suffering, so treated and cured more sick folk, had shorter waiting lists, and spent more on staff fees and medicines. To the government stats that is weak performance, to me it is praiseworthy!
What else does the government comparison site tell me? The hospital scored 79 out of 100, because it had facilities such as an induction loop, signing for the deaf, car parking, and disability access. It seems not to matter if they cured or killed.
So I look at the new NHS patient and public involvement known as PPI. Joan Saddler OBE has been appointed by the government to revitalise PPI. How did she come to be so involved in the National Health Service? A far as I can see she is a political activist, her contribution so far has been in women's and ethnic minority equality issues and in singing with the London Adventist Chorale.
At an interview Joan Saddler said: “I am very pleased to accept this exciting new role. I am passionate about community engagement and look forward to working with groups across the NHS, so that patients and the public are true partners in the delivery and improvement of healthcare"
Why do we need to consult with the public over all issues? Surely developing cancer treatment needs some scientific training, just under half the members of the public are below average intelligence and lack such training. Why concentrate on access by minority groups or the disabled when what we need first of all is effective treatment for anyone. Personally I would rather see an eminent scientist heading such work.
My GP is similarly hamstrung by government targets, in my case to have no-one waiting more than 48 hours for an appointment. Why????? I book a holiday 6 months ahead, why should I not book a non urgent appointment with a doctor more than 48 hours ahead? But Tony Blair stated I must not.
When I phoned one afternoon for a non urgent appointment to see a doctor say within the next week, maybe even at the start or end of a day to save excessive interruption to my work, I was told that was impossible, it would breach the targets. I must phone again the next day at the 08:30 scrum, and keep dialing the normally engaged number until I got through to book an emergency appointment. As a fit man I can do that, but could a weak bedridden person keep dialing?
I despair of our NHS with this present government control.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Due diligence Jane Plant Dove Clinic
Before a business takeover it is said that the only way you can determine if it's right and what the future looks like is by conducting such an exhaustive due diligence investigation that by the time you're done you'll know more about the business than the current owner does.
I have done it in business, so why not for Jane Plant's cancer cure? In summary the more I look the more I like her ideas....
The following is not a full detailed investigation, but records some of my research and thoughts. I still like Jane's ideas, and question why the NHS seem to overlook them.
1: Professor Jane Plant's background. It could be said that one should only "trade" on relevant qualifications. Some criticise her use of the title doctor as her doctorate is in geology / earth sciences rather than medicine. Is this fair? I think not as further investigation shows she worked for a time with Chinese doctors to study health effects of growing food in the selenium deficient Chinese soils. So she has looked at health effects of geology in a team with medical doctors.
2: Her background is one of personal success, she has a CBE etc, and has survived breast cancer for 20 years so far.
3: I rate her scientific approach. She quotes peer reviewed scientific research, not too many "unproven health food fads"
I then went on to look at one of her recent employments at the Dove Clinic, a private clinic specialising in cancer care. I am not endorsing this clinic, and have never used it, but I think it important to understand the clinic to assess her abilities.
There are publicly available reviews of the clinic. Their private audit gives me great confidence, the government review so misses the point that I think I see why our cancer care is so appalling...
4: The Dove Clinic audit. It covers 227 cancer cases. The horror of cancer brought tears to my eyes. 52 folk died within 6 weeks of seeing them from advanced metastases. I believe this does not reflect on the Dove clinic, more that the patients saw them too late as a last resort.
Of those treated for 4 months or more there were many deaths, but NOT ONE BEFORE NHS predictions. many had at least double the predicted life span, say 6 months extends to 14 months. So they do NO HARM, unlike some NHS treatments which are sometimes worse than a placebo (see my earlier post on Placebo).
The clinic also concentrates on quality of life rather than length, so in keeping with my views as a Christian, after all death is not a failure or defeat.
5: The government's Healthcare Commission. How do they audit a cancer clinic that I think is ten times as effective than many NHS treatments, and may even have a cure for some cancers? Their first report I can find is here. It is a 43 page report making 27 recommendations to improve the service...I look for items such as death and cure to see the effectiveness, NOTHING!!!!!! So the government inspectors look at cleanliness of hand basins and loos but do not look for cancer cures, or deaths prevented.
What burdens do I find our government inspectors lay on the organisation which employs some of the UK's leading doctors? I quote a few of their findings:
a) the clinic needs a documented procedure to handle patient deaths....... but they have had NO DEATHS on site, that is the point, it is an effective outpatient hospital a point which seems to be missed by the government inspectors.
b) a written human resource policy needs to be developed...... why? They employ the doctors who have the answers, what more do we need? The NHS have such written policies and employ doctors who dare I say so often fail.
c) written policies were needed on the prevention of harassment and bullying......what? This is an upmarket private clinic, patients don't return if they are not satisfied or bullied...
So if the government watchdog can so miss the important data yet burden a leading clinic with what I see as 27 irrelevant recommendations maybe that is why the NHS is failing to provide effective cancer treatment. They cannot see the wood for the trees. Did Jane leave the clinic to escape such bureaucracy?
I have done it in business, so why not for Jane Plant's cancer cure? In summary the more I look the more I like her ideas....
The following is not a full detailed investigation, but records some of my research and thoughts. I still like Jane's ideas, and question why the NHS seem to overlook them.
1: Professor Jane Plant's background. It could be said that one should only "trade" on relevant qualifications. Some criticise her use of the title doctor as her doctorate is in geology / earth sciences rather than medicine. Is this fair? I think not as further investigation shows she worked for a time with Chinese doctors to study health effects of growing food in the selenium deficient Chinese soils. So she has looked at health effects of geology in a team with medical doctors.
2: Her background is one of personal success, she has a CBE etc, and has survived breast cancer for 20 years so far.
3: I rate her scientific approach. She quotes peer reviewed scientific research, not too many "unproven health food fads"
I then went on to look at one of her recent employments at the Dove Clinic, a private clinic specialising in cancer care. I am not endorsing this clinic, and have never used it, but I think it important to understand the clinic to assess her abilities.
There are publicly available reviews of the clinic. Their private audit gives me great confidence, the government review so misses the point that I think I see why our cancer care is so appalling...
4: The Dove Clinic audit. It covers 227 cancer cases. The horror of cancer brought tears to my eyes. 52 folk died within 6 weeks of seeing them from advanced metastases. I believe this does not reflect on the Dove clinic, more that the patients saw them too late as a last resort.
Of those treated for 4 months or more there were many deaths, but NOT ONE BEFORE NHS predictions. many had at least double the predicted life span, say 6 months extends to 14 months. So they do NO HARM, unlike some NHS treatments which are sometimes worse than a placebo (see my earlier post on Placebo).
The clinic also concentrates on quality of life rather than length, so in keeping with my views as a Christian, after all death is not a failure or defeat.
5: The government's Healthcare Commission. How do they audit a cancer clinic that I think is ten times as effective than many NHS treatments, and may even have a cure for some cancers? Their first report I can find is here. It is a 43 page report making 27 recommendations to improve the service...I look for items such as death and cure to see the effectiveness, NOTHING!!!!!! So the government inspectors look at cleanliness of hand basins and loos but do not look for cancer cures, or deaths prevented.
What burdens do I find our government inspectors lay on the organisation which employs some of the UK's leading doctors? I quote a few of their findings:
a) the clinic needs a documented procedure to handle patient deaths....... but they have had NO DEATHS on site, that is the point, it is an effective outpatient hospital a point which seems to be missed by the government inspectors.
b) a written human resource policy needs to be developed...... why? They employ the doctors who have the answers, what more do we need? The NHS have such written policies and employ doctors who dare I say so often fail.
c) written policies were needed on the prevention of harassment and bullying......what? This is an upmarket private clinic, patients don't return if they are not satisfied or bullied...
So if the government watchdog can so miss the important data yet burden a leading clinic with what I see as 27 irrelevant recommendations maybe that is why the NHS is failing to provide effective cancer treatment. They cannot see the wood for the trees. Did Jane leave the clinic to escape such bureaucracy?
Cancer, pain and death
I said we had two "encouragements at church last Sunday. In reality one sufferer was so ill she couldn't get to church, and another told of the death of her sister. It gets worse! The friend of a member died that same day from cancer, leaving a husband, a three and a six year old. We only heard about it yesterday.
We had a phone call from another of Jan's friends who completed her radiotherapy yesterday, she was triumphantly looking forward to a rest. Yet in reality her skin was so burnt she could not sleep, wear a bra or tight fitting clothes, and she was told the skin reaction was yet to peak, it would get worse for at least the next 7 if not 10 days.
I also worry about a UCSF Professor whom I had used for diet tips. I have had no response to my emails, and her regular blog suddenly stopped on 18th March 2008. Is she too ill to continue?
Sadly Samantha Hughes, a 4 year old's death from cancer hit the press today. A tribute to her is here. Beware, it is begging for money! Seems God does not shield Christians from the problems that everyone else has, we have no charmed life.
And another sadness, we had a letter from "Telling the Truth" by Jill Briscoe, apparently Laura Meleski, who had been their administrator has had to stop work due to progressing cancer. Interesting list of prayer concerns from her church...
Yet we still welcome and need this contact, we would rather cry with others than be isolated. We are told Christ shares our sorrows. Isaiah chapter 53 verse 4 reads "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows."
We had a phone call from another of Jan's friends who completed her radiotherapy yesterday, she was triumphantly looking forward to a rest. Yet in reality her skin was so burnt she could not sleep, wear a bra or tight fitting clothes, and she was told the skin reaction was yet to peak, it would get worse for at least the next 7 if not 10 days.
I also worry about a UCSF Professor whom I had used for diet tips. I have had no response to my emails, and her regular blog suddenly stopped on 18th March 2008. Is she too ill to continue?
Sadly Samantha Hughes, a 4 year old's death from cancer hit the press today. A tribute to her is here. Beware, it is begging for money! Seems God does not shield Christians from the problems that everyone else has, we have no charmed life.
And another sadness, we had a letter from "Telling the Truth" by Jill Briscoe, apparently Laura Meleski, who had been their administrator has had to stop work due to progressing cancer. Interesting list of prayer concerns from her church...
Yet we still welcome and need this contact, we would rather cry with others than be isolated. We are told Christ shares our sorrows. Isaiah chapter 53 verse 4 reads "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows."
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Zimbabwe - God can over-rule
Today's church was encouraging, a Nigerian visited. Our UK congregation had many hurting people there... seems God uses broken weak people, maybe to show his over ruling strength.
One of Jan's friends who also has breast cancer has been so ill she has missed the last four meetings, and Jan felt too weak to go in the evening herself. I sat next to an older lady who kindly asked how Jan was doing. It turns out her sister died of breast cancer about ten years ago. That's two encouragements in one day!
The guy from Nigeria worked for African Enterprise - encouraging stories about what is happening to bring reconciliation to Africa. They had recently organised a mission in Nigeria, 11,000 people joining the church in just one week of mission, held in something over 700 meetings, so presumably many small house type meetings. He didn't seem to be the type to exaggerate. He had an insight to background of the political leaders around Zimbabwe which made it far easier to understand the current situation which he described as the verge of civil war. He said it was the churches bringing water and food to prison inmates nowadays in Zimbabwe, as the government don't feed their prisoners!
We joined hin in prayer afterwards for Africa. He prayed just like any UK Christian, no more tears or strange languages!
I bought two books brought by African Enterprise. One shows the amazing power of God. It deals with how God converted a freedom fighter in Zimbabwe. He was Stephen Lungu who by the age of 11 had run away, preferring life on the streets. As a teenager, he was recruited into an urban gang, the Black Shadows, which burgled and mugged with a half-focused dream of revolution. When an evangelist came to town, Stephen was sent to fire bomb the event, carrying his bag of bombs and mingling with the crowd. Instead he stayed to listen...Today, Stephen is Africa's Billy Graham, an international evangelist who regularly speaks in UK, US and Europe. I like his smile on his web page!
The book is entitled "Out of the Black Shadows: The Amazing Transformation of Stephen Lungu"
I spent the day concentrating on God rather than cancer, which maybe has somewhat overtaken me as I search for a cure. Strangely I switched tha car radio on three times that day to listen to the BBC and Premier Radio, probably totaling 7 minutes listening in all, as it is not a long drive to church. Returning from church I heard the testimony of a UK cancer sufferer who after surgery had refused further treatment, but had gone out to an African church which had prayed for his healing.......resulting in a remission of 5 years so far, or am I showing a lack of trust in God to not just call it a permanent miraculous healing. He also said he still had to almost "claim" his healing from God each day in trust, as his UK medical diagnosis had not been encouraging, and he was well aware in human terms of the dangers of remission ór return of the cancer.
I struggle. I believe God can guide by many means including chance circumstances. In the last 8 days there have been three such incidents at church,
Yet God also calls me to a sound mind, I need to discern. I want to learn from others experience. I cannot see that God is so limited that we need to visit Africa to see his work.
One of Jan's friends who also has breast cancer has been so ill she has missed the last four meetings, and Jan felt too weak to go in the evening herself. I sat next to an older lady who kindly asked how Jan was doing. It turns out her sister died of breast cancer about ten years ago. That's two encouragements in one day!
The guy from Nigeria worked for African Enterprise - encouraging stories about what is happening to bring reconciliation to Africa. They had recently organised a mission in Nigeria, 11,000 people joining the church in just one week of mission, held in something over 700 meetings, so presumably many small house type meetings. He didn't seem to be the type to exaggerate. He had an insight to background of the political leaders around Zimbabwe which made it far easier to understand the current situation which he described as the verge of civil war. He said it was the churches bringing water and food to prison inmates nowadays in Zimbabwe, as the government don't feed their prisoners!
We joined hin in prayer afterwards for Africa. He prayed just like any UK Christian, no more tears or strange languages!
I bought two books brought by African Enterprise. One shows the amazing power of God. It deals with how God converted a freedom fighter in Zimbabwe. He was Stephen Lungu who by the age of 11 had run away, preferring life on the streets. As a teenager, he was recruited into an urban gang, the Black Shadows, which burgled and mugged with a half-focused dream of revolution. When an evangelist came to town, Stephen was sent to fire bomb the event, carrying his bag of bombs and mingling with the crowd. Instead he stayed to listen...Today, Stephen is Africa's Billy Graham, an international evangelist who regularly speaks in UK, US and Europe. I like his smile on his web page!
The book is entitled "Out of the Black Shadows: The Amazing Transformation of Stephen Lungu"
I spent the day concentrating on God rather than cancer, which maybe has somewhat overtaken me as I search for a cure. Strangely I switched tha car radio on three times that day to listen to the BBC and Premier Radio, probably totaling 7 minutes listening in all, as it is not a long drive to church. Returning from church I heard the testimony of a UK cancer sufferer who after surgery had refused further treatment, but had gone out to an African church which had prayed for his healing.......resulting in a remission of 5 years so far, or am I showing a lack of trust in God to not just call it a permanent miraculous healing. He also said he still had to almost "claim" his healing from God each day in trust, as his UK medical diagnosis had not been encouraging, and he was well aware in human terms of the dangers of remission ór return of the cancer.
I struggle. I believe God can guide by many means including chance circumstances. In the last 8 days there have been three such incidents at church,
- introduction to work of Jane Plant
- introduction to an elderly lady whose sister died of cancer 10 years ago, I am sure she could open up on their path of faith, prayer, yet eventual death.
- hearing this talk about the church and power of prayer experienced in Africa.
Yet God also calls me to a sound mind, I need to discern. I want to learn from others experience. I cannot see that God is so limited that we need to visit Africa to see his work.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Lies, damn lies and statistics
I will delay my rant about radiotherapy for another day, and say more about Jane Plant's book that has rekindled my anger about conventional cancer treatment.
Should I as a Christian be angry?
I think of Wilberforce and the slave trade. In his day there must have been discussions amongst slave owners of the cost benefits of providing good food and health care for ones slaves. Yesterday I was reading cost benefit studies for radiotherapy! The cost benefit could easily have shown things such as a 3% increased return on investment if one provided better food for slaves, just as today's chemotherapy could provide Jan with a 3% risk reduction. But Wilberforce saw that was irrelevant, and in his anger saw through to the abolition of slavery.
Similarly I want to see a change from concentrating on almost useless conventional treatment to more effective lifestyle changes.
Jane Plant says similar things, she has re-enforced my view. How can the established medical service be so blinded to what I see as obvious? Is it our enforced multi-culturalism, whereby we cannot say something is wrong? For example the formal guides Jan has on aftercare list diet, acupuncture, meditation, Yin and Yang, Yoga, exercise, visualisation, aromatherapy etc. all as valid. No wonder diet does not stick out if mixed with quackery....
I am not knocking Professor Sir Richard Peto's statistics or work at all, I quote him as the UK's most authoritative source of UK cancer mortality statistics, the Peto method of meta analysis is named after him. But when he says chemotherpy adds a 3% benefit and we are making progress towards a cure do politicians understand that 3% is next to nothing???? Is it that because it is so close to UK target inflation figures they think 3% is goodness? It is the result of something like 50 years research and billions invested, and in my opinion rubbish!
Or is it that folk don't understand statistics? Jane suggests that reason.
I had said just by surgery Jan's chances of healthy life for at least 5 years was 4 in 5, and with conventional treatment we are trying to extend that to 6 in 7. Sounds good??? Or does it? Take Jane's airline example. Suppose you were off to Greece for a holiday tomorrow. There was a choice of seven flights, all leaving that day and scheduled for Greece. Suppose intelligence said one plane had a terrorist bomb on board and would explode that day, killing all its passengers. Would you still fly that day knowing you had a 6 in 7 chance of being OK?
Is that why a 6 in 7 chance is unacceptable to Jane and me, we are so close to the risk, albeit for me it is in a spouse? Yet for an Oxford university professor who has worked on cancer stats for the last 33 years it is old hat and acceptable. Not that I wish to discredit Sir Richard Peto, he was the first to demonstrate the magnitude of the growing worldwide epidemic of tobacco deaths.
So I stay in anger, I trust justifiably. I see another book coming to balance any bias by Jane,
"Foods to fight cancer" by Richard Beliveau. Richard is a leading authority in the field of cancer research. He holds the Chair in the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer at the University of Quebec at Montreal, where he is a professor of biochemistry. He is the director of the Molecular Medicine Laboratory of UQAM—Sainte-Justine Hospital (Centre de cancérologie Charles-Bruneau) and is also a professor of surgery at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Montreal.
I like his french name! Lets see.
Should I as a Christian be angry?
I think of Wilberforce and the slave trade. In his day there must have been discussions amongst slave owners of the cost benefits of providing good food and health care for ones slaves. Yesterday I was reading cost benefit studies for radiotherapy! The cost benefit could easily have shown things such as a 3% increased return on investment if one provided better food for slaves, just as today's chemotherapy could provide Jan with a 3% risk reduction. But Wilberforce saw that was irrelevant, and in his anger saw through to the abolition of slavery.
Similarly I want to see a change from concentrating on almost useless conventional treatment to more effective lifestyle changes.
Jane Plant says similar things, she has re-enforced my view. How can the established medical service be so blinded to what I see as obvious? Is it our enforced multi-culturalism, whereby we cannot say something is wrong? For example the formal guides Jan has on aftercare list diet, acupuncture, meditation, Yin and Yang, Yoga, exercise, visualisation, aromatherapy etc. all as valid. No wonder diet does not stick out if mixed with quackery....
I am not knocking Professor Sir Richard Peto's statistics or work at all, I quote him as the UK's most authoritative source of UK cancer mortality statistics, the Peto method of meta analysis is named after him. But when he says chemotherpy adds a 3% benefit and we are making progress towards a cure do politicians understand that 3% is next to nothing???? Is it that because it is so close to UK target inflation figures they think 3% is goodness? It is the result of something like 50 years research and billions invested, and in my opinion rubbish!
Or is it that folk don't understand statistics? Jane suggests that reason.
I had said just by surgery Jan's chances of healthy life for at least 5 years was 4 in 5, and with conventional treatment we are trying to extend that to 6 in 7. Sounds good??? Or does it? Take Jane's airline example. Suppose you were off to Greece for a holiday tomorrow. There was a choice of seven flights, all leaving that day and scheduled for Greece. Suppose intelligence said one plane had a terrorist bomb on board and would explode that day, killing all its passengers. Would you still fly that day knowing you had a 6 in 7 chance of being OK?
Is that why a 6 in 7 chance is unacceptable to Jane and me, we are so close to the risk, albeit for me it is in a spouse? Yet for an Oxford university professor who has worked on cancer stats for the last 33 years it is old hat and acceptable. Not that I wish to discredit Sir Richard Peto, he was the first to demonstrate the magnitude of the growing worldwide epidemic of tobacco deaths.
So I stay in anger, I trust justifiably. I see another book coming to balance any bias by Jane,
"Foods to fight cancer" by Richard Beliveau. Richard is a leading authority in the field of cancer research. He holds the Chair in the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer at the University of Quebec at Montreal, where he is a professor of biochemistry. He is the director of the Molecular Medicine Laboratory of UQAM—Sainte-Justine Hospital (Centre de cancérologie Charles-Bruneau) and is also a professor of surgery at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Montreal.
I like his french name! Lets see.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Is this a cure?
I chose that title as in summary Jane Plant may well have ideas to save thousands of women from breast cancer and men from prostate cancer, they are both similarly hormone linked.
I reflect most of the night on Jane Plant's book. I suspect many of her ideas could save lives. I can hardly sleep because of my anger at what the NHS conventional treatment does so inefficiently, yet ideas such as Jane's cannot make the mainstream. I do not endorse all her ideas, especially on acupuncture and aromatherapy. But 70% on diet and lifestyle makes good sense.
Jan returned from seeing a radiologist yesterday. I believe his advice to Jan does positive harm. Yet he has taken the hippocratic oath. That states "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." More on that tomorrow, I want to sleep on it.
Back to Jane's book and my anger. She has looked as a scientist at the statistics of death from breast cancer amongst 10 countries. She finds that China has just over a third of the deaths from breast cancer as we get in the UK. That is my careful analysis of her figures, not the 10,000 fold claimed by the Amazon summary.
To review what treatment does for people with cancer like Jan's:
These last two figures are not plucked from thin air, though they do not have peer reviewed accuracy. Jane is a professor at London University. I have taken my figures from peer reviewed scientific papers, typically published by professors at London, Oxford, San Francisco or Harvard Universities. These figures reflect real life horrible deaths of thousands of breast cancer sufferers, we need to learn more from them rather than inventing more useless drugs.
How can conventional medicine be so blind to what I and Jane see as straightforward facts? Why research new almost useless drugs when a simple lifestyle change would do more good? Is it vested interest? Funding of research by Pharmaceuticals? Why does Professor Sir Richard Peto proclaim that survival from breast cancer in the UK continues to improve, which is of course true, yet the drugs he advocates are almost useless? I rate a 3% improvement as not worth while, particularly after the millions of pounds spent to achieve it. Dare he not say "We have failed, fire my staff, and import a Polish nutritionist?"
Is it that a lifestyle change is too unpopular? Jane suggests abandoning dairy products such as milk, cheese, yoghurts. The Polish family I know have no car - so maybe exercise is as important as diet. Both lifestyle changes will obviously cost somewhat in comfort and convenience. But far less than the effects of chemotherapy.
So I reflect on what to do. In the meantime the UK's cancer cure rate has again hit the headlines as being amongst the worst in Europe, and way below USA. Harriet Harman was wittering on TV last night about how the government was pouring in money. A member of the audience said, "we want results, not ever increasing tax burdens". It was lost on Harriett who could only see finance as a solution.
Our latest church prayer sheet at Hoddesdon lists another lady diagnosed with a cancerous lump... my anger grows.
But how do I share this with Jan who is still weakened by Tamoxifen? Quite a challenge! As a ward sister Jan was subservient to doctors for over 20 years, and finds my attitude dangerous.....
I reflect most of the night on Jane Plant's book. I suspect many of her ideas could save lives. I can hardly sleep because of my anger at what the NHS conventional treatment does so inefficiently, yet ideas such as Jane's cannot make the mainstream. I do not endorse all her ideas, especially on acupuncture and aromatherapy. But 70% on diet and lifestyle makes good sense.
Jan returned from seeing a radiologist yesterday. I believe his advice to Jan does positive harm. Yet he has taken the hippocratic oath. That states "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." More on that tomorrow, I want to sleep on it.
Back to Jane's book and my anger. She has looked as a scientist at the statistics of death from breast cancer amongst 10 countries. She finds that China has just over a third of the deaths from breast cancer as we get in the UK. That is my careful analysis of her figures, not the 10,000 fold claimed by the Amazon summary.
To review what treatment does for people with cancer like Jan's:
- Chemotherapy 3 % reduction in deaths from recurrence
- Radiotherapy claimed 10 %, I suspect it's no use at all if one looks at long term mortality
- Tamoxifen 31% reduction in recurrence
- Chinese lifestyle (as proposed in Jane's book) 300% reduction
- Polish lifestyle as proposed earlier in this blog 300% reduction in recurrence.
These last two figures are not plucked from thin air, though they do not have peer reviewed accuracy. Jane is a professor at London University. I have taken my figures from peer reviewed scientific papers, typically published by professors at London, Oxford, San Francisco or Harvard Universities. These figures reflect real life horrible deaths of thousands of breast cancer sufferers, we need to learn more from them rather than inventing more useless drugs.
How can conventional medicine be so blind to what I and Jane see as straightforward facts? Why research new almost useless drugs when a simple lifestyle change would do more good? Is it vested interest? Funding of research by Pharmaceuticals? Why does Professor Sir Richard Peto proclaim that survival from breast cancer in the UK continues to improve, which is of course true, yet the drugs he advocates are almost useless? I rate a 3% improvement as not worth while, particularly after the millions of pounds spent to achieve it. Dare he not say "We have failed, fire my staff, and import a Polish nutritionist?"
Is it that a lifestyle change is too unpopular? Jane suggests abandoning dairy products such as milk, cheese, yoghurts. The Polish family I know have no car - so maybe exercise is as important as diet. Both lifestyle changes will obviously cost somewhat in comfort and convenience. But far less than the effects of chemotherapy.
So I reflect on what to do. In the meantime the UK's cancer cure rate has again hit the headlines as being amongst the worst in Europe, and way below USA. Harriet Harman was wittering on TV last night about how the government was pouring in money. A member of the audience said, "we want results, not ever increasing tax burdens". It was lost on Harriett who could only see finance as a solution.
Our latest church prayer sheet at Hoddesdon lists another lady diagnosed with a cancerous lump... my anger grows.
But how do I share this with Jan who is still weakened by Tamoxifen? Quite a challenge! As a ward sister Jan was subservient to doctors for over 20 years, and finds my attitude dangerous.....
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Your life in your hands
Jan is off to be measured up for radiotherapy this morning, at bit like a made to measure suit. As a joke I suggested she stop breathing whilst the scan was taken to ensure accuracy, as a breast going up and down must be hard to "image". Thinks, this precision beam isn't really precision, I bet they get 2cm of the lungs.
We received Professor Jane Plant's book this morning, Amazon as efficient as normal. Already skimmed it all, taken two hours, it is so interesting. The title "Your life in your hands" takes the theme that there is much one can do about breast cancer, one need not lie down as a victim and die. I am not yet a vegetarian nut, I still do not know what a vegan is. So I read her work as good science, not as a nutty alternative medicine crack pot.
It could provide the proof I need to persuade Jan to place more emphasis on diet than conventional treatment. Jan is coming around to that way of thinking, returning from yesterday's market with 11 different packs of fresh fruit! I hope Jane's experience in her book convinces Jan. I am hopeful, for example I notice Jane also uses red clover, a herb Jan has relied on in the past and wants to use again even though 2 doctors have already told her stop taking it.
We share Jane's view that lifestyle affects cancer. She found conventional treatment failed so looked at nutrition. We were forced to look at nutrition as the only available help after the NHS hospital lost Jan's test results, mammogram, and even said she wasn't on their computerised appointment system. Contrast this to Amazon booksellers who have yet to lose a single one of my orders. Both Jane and Jan have been forced to look at diet and lifestyle.
Jane looks at Chinese experience, I looked at Polish. See my late March post titled "In praise of Poland" for my ideas on Polish lifestyle giving a 300% benefit when the best drug gives 31%. Jane claims even more from a Chinese lifestyle.
I also agree with her horror at the lack of scientific awareness amongst our politicians and civil service who govern our food and drug safety. She pours scorn on the vested interests and lack of knowledge that allow dangerous foods into the UK. Some examples:
I like Jane's feisty attitude which she mixes with faith. She refused Tamoxifen, the world standard drug that is causing Jan problems at present. It takes some guts to refuse what everyone else in the world takes to reduce risk of recurrence, and instead trust in her ideas on diet. She has of course now survived for 15 years... She lists her vicar as one of the helpful people in her recovery from terminal cancer. Her book could help save Jan's and others' lives. It is on Amazon here.
Thanks to Bob Snyder who emailed this today:
"As we submit our lives and work to God we have more than enough resources to accomplish His plans. And my God will meet all your needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:19)
This puts the balance back, your life is in God's hands, he provides and guides you. He provided this chance lead to Jane's book.
We received Professor Jane Plant's book this morning, Amazon as efficient as normal. Already skimmed it all, taken two hours, it is so interesting. The title "Your life in your hands" takes the theme that there is much one can do about breast cancer, one need not lie down as a victim and die. I am not yet a vegetarian nut, I still do not know what a vegan is. So I read her work as good science, not as a nutty alternative medicine crack pot.
It could provide the proof I need to persuade Jan to place more emphasis on diet than conventional treatment. Jan is coming around to that way of thinking, returning from yesterday's market with 11 different packs of fresh fruit! I hope Jane's experience in her book convinces Jan. I am hopeful, for example I notice Jane also uses red clover, a herb Jan has relied on in the past and wants to use again even though 2 doctors have already told her stop taking it.
We share Jane's view that lifestyle affects cancer. She found conventional treatment failed so looked at nutrition. We were forced to look at nutrition as the only available help after the NHS hospital lost Jan's test results, mammogram, and even said she wasn't on their computerised appointment system. Contrast this to Amazon booksellers who have yet to lose a single one of my orders. Both Jane and Jan have been forced to look at diet and lifestyle.
Jane looks at Chinese experience, I looked at Polish. See my late March post titled "In praise of Poland" for my ideas on Polish lifestyle giving a 300% benefit when the best drug gives 31%. Jane claims even more from a Chinese lifestyle.
I also agree with her horror at the lack of scientific awareness amongst our politicians and civil service who govern our food and drug safety. She pours scorn on the vested interests and lack of knowledge that allow dangerous foods into the UK. Some examples:
- Yesterday's press covered the increased mortality associated with taking vitamin supplements. Yet so often these are pushed as a healthy option.
- The USA bans transfats, yet they are allowed in the UK.
- It is known that women taking 2 units a day of alcohol increase risk of breast cancer by 32%. Yet Europe's biggest cancer hospital, the Royal Marsden, publish a booklet which we were given for breast cancer which states "if you enjoy alcohol taking up to two units a day is OK". Why not tell the truth or give us facts so that we can decide???
- Osteoporosis is a side effect of breast cancer treatments, so calcium in the body is vital. Yet on page 124 Jane quotes the government who state correctly "several populations consume calcium below the UK's RDA with no evidence of adverse effects." So who dreamt up the RDA for the UK? This becomes important as Jane's diet cuts one's calcium intake, do we trust Jane or the government?
I like Jane's feisty attitude which she mixes with faith. She refused Tamoxifen, the world standard drug that is causing Jan problems at present. It takes some guts to refuse what everyone else in the world takes to reduce risk of recurrence, and instead trust in her ideas on diet. She has of course now survived for 15 years... She lists her vicar as one of the helpful people in her recovery from terminal cancer. Her book could help save Jan's and others' lives. It is on Amazon here.
Thanks to Bob Snyder who emailed this today:
"As we submit our lives and work to God we have more than enough resources to accomplish His plans. And my God will meet all your needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:19)
This puts the balance back, your life is in God's hands, he provides and guides you. He provided this chance lead to Jane's book.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Fear Food Frustration Faith
Sorry, I will tell it as it is rather than glossing it up...
First review the good news - God's provision:
Jan had successful surgery to remove the visible cancer, that has moved her chances from almost certain death within 3 years to a 4 in 5 chance of healthy survival for at least 5 years. All we are doing with Tamoxifen and radiotherapy is to try to increase those odds to say 6 in 7.
Those are very good odds for cancer, it is far worse for most other cancers. But if those were odds of being killed in an old car or bus it would still be classed in the UK as an illegal deathtrap! Think of it, 1 in 7 could kill you in five years!
Conventional treatment has been delayed by the hospital losing test results for 68 days, and not having radiotherapy available for 10 weeks. I reckon this has had 3 benefits:
Fear - the bad news:
For the last 2 days Jan has been losing fitness, and is now taking 2 pain killers each day to overcome what we guess are side effects of Tamoxifen. She is beginning to go down the road of worse health, and a greater dependence on a growing cocktail of drugs warned about in so many of the alternative cancer treatment guides. We had not been warned of these side effects, the oncologist stressed Tamoxifen is the safest anti cancer drug they have, which I believe.
So we don't know whether Jan is getting the side effects of Tamoxifen, or sickening for flu......When I look at Internet forums Jan's symptoms are common side effects. One describes Tamoxifen as making one feel like an 80 or 85 year old.
What I guess is going on:
I suspect we are losing the benefits Jan had from health foods and she is getting poisoned by Tamoxifen, a double whammy
Why? The test results tell us the cancer responds / grows more rapidly in the presence of estrogen, a female hormone. Jan had been taking "red clover"and vitamin E for the last ten years. Both are such powerful "health foods " that she has been told by doctors to stop taking them, as red clover interferes with Tamoxifen. At least it is not a placebo! Red clover was blocking the effect of estrogen on her body, this role is now taken over by Tamoxifen which in my opinion is a stronger anti cancer drug but not as effective in fighting other estrogen effects, hence Jan's side effects.
I suggest to Jan either skipping some doses of Tamoxifen, or resuming red clover. I suspect Jan will not go against medical advice. We check formal advice and I quote:
"Use this medicine only as directed by your doctor. The exact amount of medicine you need has been carefully worked out. Taking too much may increase the chance of side effects, while taking too little may not improve your condition.
Tamoxifen sometimes causes mild nausea and vomiting. However, it may have to be taken for several weeks or months to be effective. Even if you begin to feel ill, do not stop using this medicine without first checking with your doctor. Ask your health care professional for ways to lessen these effects."
This jars on me..... if the dose has been carefully worked out how come there are only two tablet sizes, 20mg and 40mg? If there is exageration and lying here, how can we trust info on side effects? I look deeper, and find the following side effects of Tamoxifen from a US site :
* Coughing up blood
* Leg swelling or tenderness
* New breast lumps
* Pelvic pain or pressure
* Sudden chest pain
* Unexplained shortness of breath
* Vaginal bleeding
* Anxiety
* Blistering, peeling, or loosening of skin and mucous membranes
* Blurred vision
* Chest pain
* Confusion
* Cough
* Dizziness
* Fainting
* Fast heartbeat
* Lightheadedness
** Shortness of breath or trouble breathing
* Weakness or sleepiness
* Yellow eyes or skin
* Change in vaginal discharge
* Chills
* Fever
* Hoarseness
* Lower back or side pain
* Pain or feeling of pressure in pelvis
* Pain, redness, or swelling in your arm or leg
* Painful or difficult urination
* Rapid shallow breathing
* Skin rash or itching over the entire body
* Sweating
* Vaginal bleeding
* Wheezing
* Bloating
* Constipation
* Darkened urine
* Diarrhea
* Difficult breathing
* Indigestion
* Itching
* Joint or muscle pain
* Large, hard skin blisters
* Large hive-like swelling on face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, and sex organs
* Loss of appetite
* Pain in stomach or side, possibly radiating to the back
* Red, irritated eyes
* Red skin lesions, often with a purple center
* Sore throat
* Sores, ulcers or white spots in mouth or on lips
* Unusual tiredness or weakness
* Vomiting
* Cataracts in the eyes or other eye problems
* Liver problems
* Bone pain
* Headache
* Skin rash or dryness
* Confusion
* Decrease in amount of urine
* Feeling of warmth redness of the face, neck, arms and occasionally, upper chest
* Lower back or side pain
* Nausea
* Noisy, rattling breathing
* Painful or difficult urination
* Swelling of fingers, hands, feet, or lower legs
* Troubled breathing at rest
* Vaginal bleeding
* Weight gain
* Weight loss
* White or brownish vaginal discharge
* Abdominal cramps
* Black, tarry stools
* Bleeding gums
* Blood in urine or stools
* Bluish color changes in skin color
* Discouragement
* Feeling sad or empty
* Irritability
* Itching in genital area
* Lack of appetite
* Loss of interest or pleasure
* Pain
* Pinpoint red spots on skin
* Stomach or pelvic discomfort, aching or heaviness
* Swelling
* Trouble concentrating
* Trouble sleeping
* Unusual bleeding or bruising
Phew, would you take that drug described by the doctor as the safest anti cancer drug she has? It claims a 31% reduction is cancer recurrence, when aspirin has been documented as giving 20%. There are other proven side effects such ovarian, uterine and vaginal cancer, plus some that effect men only so I won't list those! The list finishes with:
Other side effects not listed may also occur in some patients. If you notice any other effects, check with your healthcare professional.
Food: With those side effects dare I tell Jan to stop taking the drug, and trust in prayer or nutrition?
Frustration: I want equally solid scientific data on health foods such as red clover. I need such info if Jan is to switch from Tamoxifen back to red clover.
Another I find is Avemar. This looks a seriously useful product by a reputable supplier, more effective than Tamoxifen in trials. Avemar inhibited human ER+ cancer cell growth (such as Jan's) by 49%, Tamoxifen 42%, Aromasin 25% and Arimidex 25%. Each agent was enhanced by 5 to 10% when combined with Avemar. Most effective was a combination of Aromasin and Avemar, inhibiting breast tumors by 60%. Maybe that is why they say it must be used as an adjunct to conventional therapy rather than as a replacement.
I want a complete replacement for Tamoxifen. Thinks, I read a report of an Irish investigation looking at whether prescription drugs could work just as well if left in a box as taking them. Only the Irish could need such research! Unfortunately they found conclusively that one had to take the drug to get any effect, shame!
Faith: Our bible reading today covered Psalm 119 verses 143 and 144:
"Trouble and distress have come upon me, but your commands are my delight. Your statutes are ever right, give me understanding that I may live"
I am taking it out of context, but wonder whether we need understanding of nutrition that Jan may live healthily. We await Jane Plant's book with expectancy.
First review the good news - God's provision:
Jan had successful surgery to remove the visible cancer, that has moved her chances from almost certain death within 3 years to a 4 in 5 chance of healthy survival for at least 5 years. All we are doing with Tamoxifen and radiotherapy is to try to increase those odds to say 6 in 7.
Those are very good odds for cancer, it is far worse for most other cancers. But if those were odds of being killed in an old car or bus it would still be classed in the UK as an illegal deathtrap! Think of it, 1 in 7 could kill you in five years!
Conventional treatment has been delayed by the hospital losing test results for 68 days, and not having radiotherapy available for 10 weeks. I reckon this has had 3 benefits:
- We have been forced to look at nutrition, we had no other treatment option. I suspect food has more influence than drugs
- I believe the delayed radiotherapy gives Jan a better chance of long term survival, as reviewed by Harvard University research in the USA. Harvard at one of their top universities!
- Jan has had 68 days healthy life without any effect from cancer drugs. That is why she was the fittest person at the recent cancer clinic, the NHS didn't lose others' test results so they were on drugs!
Fear - the bad news:
For the last 2 days Jan has been losing fitness, and is now taking 2 pain killers each day to overcome what we guess are side effects of Tamoxifen. She is beginning to go down the road of worse health, and a greater dependence on a growing cocktail of drugs warned about in so many of the alternative cancer treatment guides. We had not been warned of these side effects, the oncologist stressed Tamoxifen is the safest anti cancer drug they have, which I believe.
So we don't know whether Jan is getting the side effects of Tamoxifen, or sickening for flu......When I look at Internet forums Jan's symptoms are common side effects. One describes Tamoxifen as making one feel like an 80 or 85 year old.
What I guess is going on:
I suspect we are losing the benefits Jan had from health foods and she is getting poisoned by Tamoxifen, a double whammy
Why? The test results tell us the cancer responds / grows more rapidly in the presence of estrogen, a female hormone. Jan had been taking "red clover"and vitamin E for the last ten years. Both are such powerful "health foods " that she has been told by doctors to stop taking them, as red clover interferes with Tamoxifen. At least it is not a placebo! Red clover was blocking the effect of estrogen on her body, this role is now taken over by Tamoxifen which in my opinion is a stronger anti cancer drug but not as effective in fighting other estrogen effects, hence Jan's side effects.
I suggest to Jan either skipping some doses of Tamoxifen, or resuming red clover. I suspect Jan will not go against medical advice. We check formal advice and I quote:
"Use this medicine only as directed by your doctor. The exact amount of medicine you need has been carefully worked out. Taking too much may increase the chance of side effects, while taking too little may not improve your condition.
Tamoxifen sometimes causes mild nausea and vomiting. However, it may have to be taken for several weeks or months to be effective. Even if you begin to feel ill, do not stop using this medicine without first checking with your doctor. Ask your health care professional for ways to lessen these effects."
This jars on me..... if the dose has been carefully worked out how come there are only two tablet sizes, 20mg and 40mg? If there is exageration and lying here, how can we trust info on side effects? I look deeper, and find the following side effects of Tamoxifen from a US site :
* Coughing up blood
* Leg swelling or tenderness
* New breast lumps
* Pelvic pain or pressure
* Sudden chest pain
* Unexplained shortness of breath
* Vaginal bleeding
* Anxiety
* Blistering, peeling, or loosening of skin and mucous membranes
* Blurred vision
* Chest pain
* Confusion
* Cough
* Dizziness
* Fainting
* Fast heartbeat
* Lightheadedness
** Shortness of breath or trouble breathing
* Weakness or sleepiness
* Yellow eyes or skin
* Change in vaginal discharge
* Chills
* Fever
* Hoarseness
* Lower back or side pain
* Pain or feeling of pressure in pelvis
* Pain, redness, or swelling in your arm or leg
* Painful or difficult urination
* Rapid shallow breathing
* Skin rash or itching over the entire body
* Sweating
* Vaginal bleeding
* Wheezing
* Bloating
* Constipation
* Darkened urine
* Diarrhea
* Difficult breathing
* Indigestion
* Itching
* Joint or muscle pain
* Large, hard skin blisters
* Large hive-like swelling on face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, and sex organs
* Loss of appetite
* Pain in stomach or side, possibly radiating to the back
* Red, irritated eyes
* Red skin lesions, often with a purple center
* Sore throat
* Sores, ulcers or white spots in mouth or on lips
* Unusual tiredness or weakness
* Vomiting
* Cataracts in the eyes or other eye problems
* Liver problems
* Bone pain
* Headache
* Skin rash or dryness
* Confusion
* Decrease in amount of urine
* Feeling of warmth redness of the face, neck, arms and occasionally, upper chest
* Lower back or side pain
* Nausea
* Noisy, rattling breathing
* Painful or difficult urination
* Swelling of fingers, hands, feet, or lower legs
* Troubled breathing at rest
* Vaginal bleeding
* Weight gain
* Weight loss
* White or brownish vaginal discharge
* Abdominal cramps
* Black, tarry stools
* Bleeding gums
* Blood in urine or stools
* Bluish color changes in skin color
* Discouragement
* Feeling sad or empty
* Irritability
* Itching in genital area
* Lack of appetite
* Loss of interest or pleasure
* Pain
* Pinpoint red spots on skin
* Stomach or pelvic discomfort, aching or heaviness
* Swelling
* Trouble concentrating
* Trouble sleeping
* Unusual bleeding or bruising
Phew, would you take that drug described by the doctor as the safest anti cancer drug she has? It claims a 31% reduction is cancer recurrence, when aspirin has been documented as giving 20%. There are other proven side effects such ovarian, uterine and vaginal cancer, plus some that effect men only so I won't list those! The list finishes with:
Other side effects not listed may also occur in some patients. If you notice any other effects, check with your healthcare professional.
Food: With those side effects dare I tell Jan to stop taking the drug, and trust in prayer or nutrition?
Frustration: I want equally solid scientific data on health foods such as red clover. I need such info if Jan is to switch from Tamoxifen back to red clover.
Another I find is Avemar. This looks a seriously useful product by a reputable supplier, more effective than Tamoxifen in trials. Avemar inhibited human ER+ cancer cell growth (such as Jan's) by 49%, Tamoxifen 42%, Aromasin 25% and Arimidex 25%. Each agent was enhanced by 5 to 10% when combined with Avemar. Most effective was a combination of Aromasin and Avemar, inhibiting breast tumors by 60%. Maybe that is why they say it must be used as an adjunct to conventional therapy rather than as a replacement.
I want a complete replacement for Tamoxifen. Thinks, I read a report of an Irish investigation looking at whether prescription drugs could work just as well if left in a box as taking them. Only the Irish could need such research! Unfortunately they found conclusively that one had to take the drug to get any effect, shame!
Faith: Our bible reading today covered Psalm 119 verses 143 and 144:
"Trouble and distress have come upon me, but your commands are my delight. Your statutes are ever right, give me understanding that I may live"
I am taking it out of context, but wonder whether we need understanding of nutrition that Jan may live healthily. We await Jane Plant's book with expectancy.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Cancer's chaotic calendar
I had said one of my interests is caravanning. Yet that has taken a back seat to cancer. Sorry, no tips here on which site to use etc., the caravan was moved even deeper into my storage space yesterday to make way for a new bathroom suite.
Cancer arrives without any respect for one's other commitments or diary appointments, even for this simple cancer it seems one has to blank out about six months from the diary.
Diary clashes so far include:
I read this helpful article on the web which ties in with our current experience. I quote:
"Ecclesiastes chapter three and verse one tells us that there is a time for every purpose. For whatever struggles you are going through, for whatever trials, for whatever joy, for whatever you feel or feel not, for whatever you do or do not there is a purpose and an appointed time in our lives that these things will take place.
Not may take place, but will take place.
There is a season and reason for all things. There is a definite purpose and God predetermines the outcome of every situation
I like this guy's articles. This one titled $20 an hour had me in tears....
And this one by Charles Finney is great. The wonderful resources that I find on the web, including classic preachers.
Cancer arrives without any respect for one's other commitments or diary appointments, even for this simple cancer it seems one has to blank out about six months from the diary.
Diary clashes so far include:
- Initial diagnosis on 29th. Jan, when our ferry booking to caravan with my sister this summer had to be made by 31st. Jan. My sister goes ahead alone, we hope we may catch up with her later, subject to radiotherapy.
- The day after Jan's operation my son had a hole drilled in his skull to remove a dental abscess. Thankfully it went smoothly.
- Yesterday a builder arrived to start rebuilding the structure of our house. Yes, the house really is falling down around us. The work is the result of about 30 months of monitoring and delayed insurance claim, so it will now overlap with Jan's radiotherapy. The new bathroom suite arrives today, hence the need to move a caravan to provide temporary storage space.
I read this helpful article on the web which ties in with our current experience. I quote:
"Ecclesiastes chapter three and verse one tells us that there is a time for every purpose. For whatever struggles you are going through, for whatever trials, for whatever joy, for whatever you feel or feel not, for whatever you do or do not there is a purpose and an appointed time in our lives that these things will take place.
Not may take place, but will take place.
There is a season and reason for all things. There is a definite purpose and God predetermines the outcome of every situation
I like this guy's articles. This one titled $20 an hour had me in tears....
And this one by Charles Finney is great. The wonderful resources that I find on the web, including classic preachers.
Professor Jane Plant
Yesterday I said I will be guided by university professors rather than health food cranks and religious nuts. At that time I had no idea where such advice would come from, God provided such a lead within 2 hours, and I ordered the book within another 2 hours.
This is all thanks to a friend for a lead to Jane Plant, an English professor who has written a book on surviving breast cancer. Jane is the Chief Scientist of the British Geological Survey. She suffered breast cancer and four subsequent recurrences, at which time her prognosis was deemed terminal and she was given only months to live. She is still alive and well, she sat next to my friend at a recent university dinner. Her book on breast cancer is reviewed here.
Initially I like her ideas of looking at Chinese experience which ties in with mine of looking at Polish experience. It is a bit like a light had switched on for me, lifestyle is more important than conventional drugs. But the more I reflect on it I doubt it can be as easy as merely removing dairy products from the diet, which is the summary I read of Jane's ideas. I read several worrying reviews of her ideas.
A review of Jane's book by Dr. Sandra Goodman states Jane Plant attempted to cover too much territory for her expertise (she has after all a Ph.D. in Geology, not in Nutrition or Immunology). Most of her dietary advice is to avoid alcohol, red meat, caffeine, chemicals, and to eat a wholefood diet with plenty of greens, vegetables and fruits, drink filtered water and nutritious juices. Despite her somewhat bossy, quirky and intolerant manner, this book is worth reading, particularly regarding the dairy connection to breast cancer.
Jane Plant's site is here
So we wait and pray, the book has yet to arrive. Jan is still very pro conventional treatment, they are after all her old colleagues, and she hates any change in diet.
This is all thanks to a friend for a lead to Jane Plant, an English professor who has written a book on surviving breast cancer. Jane is the Chief Scientist of the British Geological Survey. She suffered breast cancer and four subsequent recurrences, at which time her prognosis was deemed terminal and she was given only months to live. She is still alive and well, she sat next to my friend at a recent university dinner. Her book on breast cancer is reviewed here.
Initially I like her ideas of looking at Chinese experience which ties in with mine of looking at Polish experience. It is a bit like a light had switched on for me, lifestyle is more important than conventional drugs. But the more I reflect on it I doubt it can be as easy as merely removing dairy products from the diet, which is the summary I read of Jane's ideas. I read several worrying reviews of her ideas.
A review of Jane's book by Dr. Sandra Goodman states Jane Plant attempted to cover too much territory for her expertise (she has after all a Ph.D. in Geology, not in Nutrition or Immunology). Most of her dietary advice is to avoid alcohol, red meat, caffeine, chemicals, and to eat a wholefood diet with plenty of greens, vegetables and fruits, drink filtered water and nutritious juices. Despite her somewhat bossy, quirky and intolerant manner, this book is worth reading, particularly regarding the dairy connection to breast cancer.
Jane Plant's site is here
So we wait and pray, the book has yet to arrive. Jan is still very pro conventional treatment, they are after all her old colleagues, and she hates any change in diet.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Sort the wheat from the chaff
Today is London Marathon day. I love this quote from Amy Holden one of today's runners:
"a brain and some shoes are essential for marathon success, although if it comes down to a choice, pick the shoes. More people finish marathons with no brains than with no shoes."
I take this to mean that for success one has to make several choices, not necessarily between the good and bad, but between the good and even better or best. Her story may be found here
I question "what is the best choice for me and Jan". That is if we have any choice, as we are "committed" to the UK NHS treatment route.
I still struggle with the whole issue of conventional cancer treatment. I have said I see radiotherapy as the con trick of the century, and now have serious doubts about Tamoxifen, the drug Jan is on for the next 2 years. To explain this I am not saying the conventional treatments do not work at all, it is just their effect is so minimal I doubt they are worth it. I have already posted rather old but learned research showing that for the simple breast cancer such as Jan has a placebo is more effective than radio or chemotherapy. In other words the conventional treatment can do positive harm.
I read Professor Sir Richard Peto's work, I regard him highly as probably one of the UK's top cancer authorities, I used his research when studying asbestos induced cancers in industry. Yet even in 2007 he only claims a 3% benefit from chemotherapy for breast cancer which is why we would reject chemotherapy if offered.
So I looked at similar treatment for bowel cancer. Guess what, just a 5 - 6% gain! That figure comes from a BBC report which says in more detail "Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are increasingly being used to treat bowel cancer once surgery has been carried out, especially in more advanced tumours, and may increase survival by 5 to 6 per cent."
On a positive note I see they report this. "British surgeons pioneering a technique known as total mesorectal excision claim to have one of the lowest recurrence rates in the world, with the cancer returning in only five per cent of cases." As most bowel cancer treatments claim a 50% recurrence, a drop to 5% is a ten fold reduction. Read their claims and copies of their published evidence at Pelican Cancer Foundation." Amy runs the marathon today to raise money for this work. I rate it, it talks about precision surgery, something so lacking it Jan's treatment so far, and why in my opinion Jan now needs radiotherapy to mop up the mess left behind.
What else needs discernment?
Christian cancer cures:
I looked in more detail at this site which claims to be Christian. I agree with its questioning of conventional treatments, but I question:
When I compare the extracts of his book with learned university papers that are all free I question it. But I will keep reading. This site has info for free, it is run by a mormon missionary with no medical training. Sad the mormon gives out for free what looks like similar information. I hope I find them better than my initial impression.
Christian TV:
Last Friday evening we watched the "Healing School" that promises certain healing if only we will visit South Africa. I doubt that. Is God a racist or limited by geographic boundaries?
So we switched to UCB. We thank God for UCB, so often finding their broadcasts helpful. On Friday evening we watched and heard a talk by Margaret Stunt. I had never heard of her before, a lively mature lady talking to a convention of over 1000 young people. Half way through her talk she mentioned she had breast cancer two years ago. Very encouraging to us, how many people in the UK even admit to having had breast cancer? I believe God guided us to her broadcast. Oops, she emigrated three months ago from London to South Africa!
Christian books:
Sorry to say, I had recommended Janet Thompson's book "Dear God they say it is cancer". On reading in more detail it shares experiences of 44 American breast cancer sufferers. But their experience does NOT match the UK, treatments differ, and they are NOT cancer experts. I found it sad that when I research "chemo brain" Janet's book has one lady who blames her "chemo brain" on Tamoxifem. I believe this could unnecessarily scare us when Jan is just starting Tamoxifen. But nowhere in the scientific papers can I find such evidence, I suspect the lady is confusing chemotherapy and hormonal therapy, they are both "pills". So Janet's book is dropping to the "may do more harm than good" category for us in the UK.
The answer
God is sovereign. The maker of the universe can control cancer, take it to him in prayer.
God gives us and calls us to use a "sound mind". I will still research, I am becoming more and more an organic fruit and veg case coupled with exercise. I will skip today's marathon, and will be guided by university professors rather than health food cranks and religious nuts.
I find some support for this need for discernment in this book extract by a christian Professor here. Quoting the second letter to Timothy chapter 1 verse 7 it says, "For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind".
"a brain and some shoes are essential for marathon success, although if it comes down to a choice, pick the shoes. More people finish marathons with no brains than with no shoes."
I take this to mean that for success one has to make several choices, not necessarily between the good and bad, but between the good and even better or best. Her story may be found here
I question "what is the best choice for me and Jan". That is if we have any choice, as we are "committed" to the UK NHS treatment route.
I still struggle with the whole issue of conventional cancer treatment. I have said I see radiotherapy as the con trick of the century, and now have serious doubts about Tamoxifen, the drug Jan is on for the next 2 years. To explain this I am not saying the conventional treatments do not work at all, it is just their effect is so minimal I doubt they are worth it. I have already posted rather old but learned research showing that for the simple breast cancer such as Jan has a placebo is more effective than radio or chemotherapy. In other words the conventional treatment can do positive harm.
I read Professor Sir Richard Peto's work, I regard him highly as probably one of the UK's top cancer authorities, I used his research when studying asbestos induced cancers in industry. Yet even in 2007 he only claims a 3% benefit from chemotherapy for breast cancer which is why we would reject chemotherapy if offered.
So I looked at similar treatment for bowel cancer. Guess what, just a 5 - 6% gain! That figure comes from a BBC report which says in more detail "Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are increasingly being used to treat bowel cancer once surgery has been carried out, especially in more advanced tumours, and may increase survival by 5 to 6 per cent."
On a positive note I see they report this. "British surgeons pioneering a technique known as total mesorectal excision claim to have one of the lowest recurrence rates in the world, with the cancer returning in only five per cent of cases." As most bowel cancer treatments claim a 50% recurrence, a drop to 5% is a ten fold reduction. Read their claims and copies of their published evidence at Pelican Cancer Foundation." Amy runs the marathon today to raise money for this work. I rate it, it talks about precision surgery, something so lacking it Jan's treatment so far, and why in my opinion Jan now needs radiotherapy to mop up the mess left behind.
What else needs discernment?
Christian cancer cures:
I looked in more detail at this site which claims to be Christian. I agree with its questioning of conventional treatments, but I question:
- is this guy really a christian? Too much jars on me.
- why does he give no facts, one has to buy his book?
When I compare the extracts of his book with learned university papers that are all free I question it. But I will keep reading. This site has info for free, it is run by a mormon missionary with no medical training. Sad the mormon gives out for free what looks like similar information. I hope I find them better than my initial impression.
Christian TV:
Last Friday evening we watched the "Healing School" that promises certain healing if only we will visit South Africa. I doubt that. Is God a racist or limited by geographic boundaries?
So we switched to UCB. We thank God for UCB, so often finding their broadcasts helpful. On Friday evening we watched and heard a talk by Margaret Stunt. I had never heard of her before, a lively mature lady talking to a convention of over 1000 young people. Half way through her talk she mentioned she had breast cancer two years ago. Very encouraging to us, how many people in the UK even admit to having had breast cancer? I believe God guided us to her broadcast. Oops, she emigrated three months ago from London to South Africa!
Christian books:
Sorry to say, I had recommended Janet Thompson's book "Dear God they say it is cancer". On reading in more detail it shares experiences of 44 American breast cancer sufferers. But their experience does NOT match the UK, treatments differ, and they are NOT cancer experts. I found it sad that when I research "chemo brain" Janet's book has one lady who blames her "chemo brain" on Tamoxifem. I believe this could unnecessarily scare us when Jan is just starting Tamoxifen. But nowhere in the scientific papers can I find such evidence, I suspect the lady is confusing chemotherapy and hormonal therapy, they are both "pills". So Janet's book is dropping to the "may do more harm than good" category for us in the UK.
The answer
God is sovereign. The maker of the universe can control cancer, take it to him in prayer.
God gives us and calls us to use a "sound mind". I will still research, I am becoming more and more an organic fruit and veg case coupled with exercise. I will skip today's marathon, and will be guided by university professors rather than health food cranks and religious nuts.
I find some support for this need for discernment in this book extract by a christian Professor here. Quoting the second letter to Timothy chapter 1 verse 7 it says, "For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind".
Humour - breast reconstruction
Time for a weekend joke. I read Janet Thompson's book, "Dear God, they say it is cancer" where it discusses breast reconstruction. To quote
"Breast cancer changes the outside. One reconstruction left one breast tear shaped and one round. Another had one perky, the other sagging, and a third asked for a size B, and got a C." So what is the author's advice?
"Weigh all your options"
I think I want to remove this book from our list of recommendations!
"Breast cancer changes the outside. One reconstruction left one breast tear shaped and one round. Another had one perky, the other sagging, and a third asked for a size B, and got a C." So what is the author's advice?
"Weigh all your options"
I think I want to remove this book from our list of recommendations!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Tamoxifen, aspirin and or cabbage
Jan has no problems with Tamoxifen so far. We had looked up on Internet for the best time to take it, just before sleeping. One sleeps through any flushes etc!
I look for results and am horrified, The manufacturer claims a 31% reduction for recurrence of cancer and deaths. I had expected a modern drug that is the treatment of choice to at least halve recurrence and risk. Even the 31% must be an optimistic claim by the drug manufacturer, when we know Tamoxifen is a carcinogen, and causes other cancers whilst curing breast cancer. Do they claim a death from uterine cancer as a success in their 31% reduction in breast cancer deaths? I suspect they do, but need to do more research.
Independent tests give aspirin a 20% benefit, not much worse than Tamoxifen at a hundredth the cost and risk. I have seen cabbage rated at 70% and reckon a full Polish diet and lifestyle could give us 300% with none of the associated risks. I read a telegraph article about Sheryl Crow who has survived breast cancer, she is also now a convert to exercise and organic veggies.
Yet though I keep buying and lightly steaming cruciferous veggies (cabbage and the like) Jan wants little to do with them, and places complete trust in doctors recommended foil wrapped tablets. She has tried a little pickled red cabbage and sauerkraut, and bought a Polish recipe book though! But she returned yesterday with three red meat joints of beef and pork...I want to throw the beef away, as I read a diet of overcooked beef can increase breast cancer risk by 400%. Maybe Jan feels let down by the health food industry, after all she has taken red berries and red clover for years. yet she still got cancer. But I wonder whether the berry and clover diet had given her years of protection.
So do I go along with her trust in Tamoxifen to keep her confidence in her treatment which must be part of the cure? On reflection maybe the answer is easy, use Tamoxifen and cabbage, and pray that Jan will escape the nasties of Tamoxifen. We need to trust God to over-rule whatever drug, diet or treatment she takes. I will do further research on Tamoxifen.
I look for results and am horrified, The manufacturer claims a 31% reduction for recurrence of cancer and deaths. I had expected a modern drug that is the treatment of choice to at least halve recurrence and risk. Even the 31% must be an optimistic claim by the drug manufacturer, when we know Tamoxifen is a carcinogen, and causes other cancers whilst curing breast cancer. Do they claim a death from uterine cancer as a success in their 31% reduction in breast cancer deaths? I suspect they do, but need to do more research.
Independent tests give aspirin a 20% benefit, not much worse than Tamoxifen at a hundredth the cost and risk. I have seen cabbage rated at 70% and reckon a full Polish diet and lifestyle could give us 300% with none of the associated risks. I read a telegraph article about Sheryl Crow who has survived breast cancer, she is also now a convert to exercise and organic veggies.
Yet though I keep buying and lightly steaming cruciferous veggies (cabbage and the like) Jan wants little to do with them, and places complete trust in doctors recommended foil wrapped tablets. She has tried a little pickled red cabbage and sauerkraut, and bought a Polish recipe book though! But she returned yesterday with three red meat joints of beef and pork...I want to throw the beef away, as I read a diet of overcooked beef can increase breast cancer risk by 400%. Maybe Jan feels let down by the health food industry, after all she has taken red berries and red clover for years. yet she still got cancer. But I wonder whether the berry and clover diet had given her years of protection.
So do I go along with her trust in Tamoxifen to keep her confidence in her treatment which must be part of the cure? On reflection maybe the answer is easy, use Tamoxifen and cabbage, and pray that Jan will escape the nasties of Tamoxifen. We need to trust God to over-rule whatever drug, diet or treatment she takes. I will do further research on Tamoxifen.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Hormone treatment started
Jan is pleased......results phoned through to say her cancer was both ER and PR positive. This is the norm and makes conventional hormone therapy the treatment of choice. The prescription was faxed through that day, and she started the drugs for a 2 year course to be followed by 3 years of Aromasin. The fax would make us believe we are urgently starting a life saving drug! WRONG.
I worry......
We had deliberately not looked hard at hormone treatment effects too soon, we didn't want to worry about drugs she may never take, radio is giving us enough concern!
So I look for trials showing effectiveness of Tamoxifen, the drug she will take for the first 2 years. I find little hard evidence of its effectiveness. So either the breast cancer is so "benign" that an aspirin or placebo can help as I said in previous posts, or Tamoxifen is no great deal. The advice we had from our surgeon and oncologist was also different, surgeon said wait till radio is finished before taking Tamoxifen, oncologist wants earliest possible start. If the drug was powerful surely there would be a clear cut sequence, not a disagreement between these 2 doctors treating Jan?
I have already posted that we reckon chemo is not worthwhile, radiotherapy makes no difference to long term survival, so now hormones are coming across to me as equally questionable. I am a Christian and looked at this site called cancertruth which is written by someone claiming to be a Christian and wanting to pass on helpful information. I want to discredit it, the author is not a qualified doctor, and he gives no facts unless one pays him money. Yet he says the book will help one "Learn how the Cancer Industry manipulates statistics to make it appear that chemotherapy works when it really cures less than 3% of all cancer patients!" That ties in exactly with my reading of the figures for Jan's case which is why we have already dismissed chemo. It rings true on some points.
I look at the figures for Aromasin, the drug Jan will take for 3 years. This site is written by the mamufacturer, so will present the drug in the best possible light. Three things worry me about this drug:
Another concern we have is that Jan has been taking "red clover" for the last ten years or more. It is known to have similar effects to Tamoxifen, so similar that both a nurse and the oncologist have told Jan to stop taking "red clover". I am happy about that whilst Jan takes Tamoxifen as it is known they compete with each other. But if they are similar has Jan already been enjoying the hormone benefits just by taking "red clover" without the side effects Tamoxifen can give? This book suggests she may have been, so we are losing a valuable natural natural remedy whilst we use Tamoxifen.
I query our NHS treatment. But if mental state is part of the cure do I keep these concerns to myself and let Jan rejoice in the fact that she has started treatment? She still has complete trust in our medical service, after all she worked in the service for over 20 years.
I worry......
We had deliberately not looked hard at hormone treatment effects too soon, we didn't want to worry about drugs she may never take, radio is giving us enough concern!
So I look for trials showing effectiveness of Tamoxifen, the drug she will take for the first 2 years. I find little hard evidence of its effectiveness. So either the breast cancer is so "benign" that an aspirin or placebo can help as I said in previous posts, or Tamoxifen is no great deal. The advice we had from our surgeon and oncologist was also different, surgeon said wait till radio is finished before taking Tamoxifen, oncologist wants earliest possible start. If the drug was powerful surely there would be a clear cut sequence, not a disagreement between these 2 doctors treating Jan?
I have already posted that we reckon chemo is not worthwhile, radiotherapy makes no difference to long term survival, so now hormones are coming across to me as equally questionable. I am a Christian and looked at this site called cancertruth which is written by someone claiming to be a Christian and wanting to pass on helpful information. I want to discredit it, the author is not a qualified doctor, and he gives no facts unless one pays him money. Yet he says the book will help one "Learn how the Cancer Industry manipulates statistics to make it appear that chemotherapy works when it really cures less than 3% of all cancer patients!" That ties in exactly with my reading of the figures for Jan's case which is why we have already dismissed chemo. It rings true on some points.
I look at the figures for Aromasin, the drug Jan will take for 3 years. This site is written by the mamufacturer, so will present the drug in the best possible light. Three things worry me about this drug:
- all the side effects are worse than Tamoxifen, some of these are heart effects.
- the 3 year figures look better than 5 year, almost as though aim of the drug is just to give just 3 years of life, and then who cares. It was after all designed for late stage breast cancer, and has only just had its use extended to early breast cancer in patients who have already survived 2 years of Tamoxifen.
- the overall mortality gains are not statistically significant. Wow, what an admission for a drug with worse side effects. How did this get approved?
Another concern we have is that Jan has been taking "red clover" for the last ten years or more. It is known to have similar effects to Tamoxifen, so similar that both a nurse and the oncologist have told Jan to stop taking "red clover". I am happy about that whilst Jan takes Tamoxifen as it is known they compete with each other. But if they are similar has Jan already been enjoying the hormone benefits just by taking "red clover" without the side effects Tamoxifen can give? This book suggests she may have been, so we are losing a valuable natural natural remedy whilst we use Tamoxifen.
I query our NHS treatment. But if mental state is part of the cure do I keep these concerns to myself and let Jan rejoice in the fact that she has started treatment? She still has complete trust in our medical service, after all she worked in the service for over 20 years.
Delayed radiotherapy could help
We return home late last night to see a hospital letter saying there is a 10 week delay for radiotherapy. Jan is disappointed, silent. She wants it all over so that she can "start her life again". Does this delay matter? Or has God got his perfect timing yet again?
In summary though this is a delay beyond NHS guidelines, government targets and what had been suggested several times by the hospital I believe it is for the best. How God over rules even our NHS! A long post, skip it if you just want summary, God continues to provide his best for us, and seems to know more about correct radiotherapy timing than our NHS.
I read the archives of our newspapers, and yes, it seems delay gives a 60% increase in the risk of Jan's early death. Thanks!
Here is just one of the many newspaper articles One newspaper says "write to your MP, complain etc." Jan is so upset she wants me to stop looking at the Internet for such data. Maybe I should, but I ignore her and after an hour or so of research till 00:45 I find I can re-assure her that all is OK, the delay does not matter, and we sleep peacefully....
In more detail the next morning, I go to the original serious article quoted by the newspapers. It is in the Journal of Oncology dated 2003,
It does indeed state the delay increases the risk of recurrence of cancer in the same area by 60%. Yet read more carefully it also states risk of the far more deadly distant metastases and death remain the same. I had earlier said I thought radiotherapy was the con trick of the century, this confirms my belief. Radiotherapy controls local recurrence, but makes little difference to long term survival, which would be the measure I more care about. Thinks, does this mean a recurrence of breast cancer hardly matters, if it recurs one has a mastectomy, so maybe that is why local recurrence makes no difference to long term survival? Maybe Jan would disagree!
But this is just one Canadian oncology paper which surveys 46 earlier papers and 15,782 patients. Its conclusion is "There was little evidence about the impact of delay in RT on the risk of metastases or the probability of long-term survival in any situation. Delay in the initiation of RT is associated with a decrease in LRR in breast cancer. Delays in starting RT should be as short as reasonably achievable."
I look deeper at the replies in later journals and find:
An excellent list of papers here
And this from Harvard which states that for certain radiation doses the optimum is SRI of 9 to 12 weeks. We know the hospital plan a high dose for Jan using a local boost which is why treatment has risen from the discussed 3 weeks to 4, though they have not told us the dose.
This second article concludes "I believe that the complex details of the interactions of the SRI with other parameters must be better understood to design optimal programs of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy for individual patient subgroups with different cancers." I would say this was one doctor calling another a "wally"!
A French reply states the first report "produced a result in contradiction with the conclusion of the largest study" In other words, "Dear sir, you are a wally". It does add "In recent years, delay in access to radiation therapy has been highly publicized. On compassionate grounds alone, treatment for cancer should always be initiated as early as possible after diagnosis. However, we believe that at least with respect to breast cancer, firm evidence concerning a specific delay that would have a detrimental effect on outcomes is still lacking, despite this ambitious work by Huang et al."
So we are now happy that the delay could well be for the best. Thank you Jesus. If the hospital letter had just said "Dear Jan, we believe that in your case radiotherapy is best commenced after 10 weeks" she would have gone to bed thrilled that all was being done for her best possible treatment.
I have not covered all papers, there are more worrying learned papers which say don't delay. Another says 8 weeks max. In contradiction another says wait at least 12 weeks for best results. So I am confused, or are even the doctors confused? Or is it that if radiotherapy makes as little real difference as I suspect it follows that timing makes little difference, hence the disagreement in these learned papers?
And a recent BMJ article showing how doctors grapple with prioritising radiotherapy is here. It makes one understand the complex issues facing doctors when resources are stretched.
In summary though this is a delay beyond NHS guidelines, government targets and what had been suggested several times by the hospital I believe it is for the best. How God over rules even our NHS! A long post, skip it if you just want summary, God continues to provide his best for us, and seems to know more about correct radiotherapy timing than our NHS.
I read the archives of our newspapers, and yes, it seems delay gives a 60% increase in the risk of Jan's early death. Thanks!
Here is just one of the many newspaper articles One newspaper says "write to your MP, complain etc." Jan is so upset she wants me to stop looking at the Internet for such data. Maybe I should, but I ignore her and after an hour or so of research till 00:45 I find I can re-assure her that all is OK, the delay does not matter, and we sleep peacefully....
In more detail the next morning, I go to the original serious article quoted by the newspapers. It is in the Journal of Oncology dated 2003,
It does indeed state the delay increases the risk of recurrence of cancer in the same area by 60%. Yet read more carefully it also states risk of the far more deadly distant metastases and death remain the same. I had earlier said I thought radiotherapy was the con trick of the century, this confirms my belief. Radiotherapy controls local recurrence, but makes little difference to long term survival, which would be the measure I more care about. Thinks, does this mean a recurrence of breast cancer hardly matters, if it recurs one has a mastectomy, so maybe that is why local recurrence makes no difference to long term survival? Maybe Jan would disagree!
But this is just one Canadian oncology paper which surveys 46 earlier papers and 15,782 patients. Its conclusion is "There was little evidence about the impact of delay in RT on the risk of metastases or the probability of long-term survival in any situation. Delay in the initiation of RT is associated with a decrease in LRR in breast cancer. Delays in starting RT should be as short as reasonably achievable."
I look deeper at the replies in later journals and find:
An excellent list of papers here
And this from Harvard which states that for certain radiation doses the optimum is SRI of 9 to 12 weeks. We know the hospital plan a high dose for Jan using a local boost which is why treatment has risen from the discussed 3 weeks to 4, though they have not told us the dose.
This second article concludes "I believe that the complex details of the interactions of the SRI with other parameters must be better understood to design optimal programs of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy for individual patient subgroups with different cancers." I would say this was one doctor calling another a "wally"!
A French reply states the first report "produced a result in contradiction with the conclusion of the largest study" In other words, "Dear sir, you are a wally". It does add "In recent years, delay in access to radiation therapy has been highly publicized. On compassionate grounds alone, treatment for cancer should always be initiated as early as possible after diagnosis. However, we believe that at least with respect to breast cancer, firm evidence concerning a specific delay that would have a detrimental effect on outcomes is still lacking, despite this ambitious work by Huang et al."
So we are now happy that the delay could well be for the best. Thank you Jesus. If the hospital letter had just said "Dear Jan, we believe that in your case radiotherapy is best commenced after 10 weeks" she would have gone to bed thrilled that all was being done for her best possible treatment.
I have not covered all papers, there are more worrying learned papers which say don't delay. Another says 8 weeks max. In contradiction another says wait at least 12 weeks for best results. So I am confused, or are even the doctors confused? Or is it that if radiotherapy makes as little real difference as I suspect it follows that timing makes little difference, hence the disagreement in these learned papers?
And a recent BMJ article showing how doctors grapple with prioritising radiotherapy is here. It makes one understand the complex issues facing doctors when resources are stretched.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
New wonder drug named Placebo
We are currently denied hormone treatment due to delays in getting the pre-req test results, and radiotherapy due to delay in access to the equipment. The wonder drug placebo gives us hope whilst we wait, after all veggies, placebos and telling jokes is all we can do! Oops, and leave it in God's almighty hands!
I am still trying to understand why we give such trust to radiotherapy. I looked at this old but scholarly research that compares three treatments, radio, chemo, and the new wonder drug "placebo".
The details looked at 5 year survival from breast cancer:
From page 724 of the report for post menopausal women 56% survive using radio, whereas 60% survive after chemo and 62% survive using a placebo. So Placebo was the best! It means at the time of this report (dated) the best conventional treatments did more harm than good. This scares and annoys me. I have seen business fire folk for such poor results.
Admittedly placebo only wins in the less serious cancer cases, real treatment wins in more serious cases. But Jan's is in the simpler category as she has no node involvement. Placebo, maybe we want it!
It shows the utmost importance of mental state upon cure. Faith in a sovereign God that has this all under control must help enormously. I am not saying that prayer is a placebo, after all I believe Jesus physically rose from the dead. But the mental state one has from faith must aid any cure.
I am still trying to understand why we give such trust to radiotherapy. I looked at this old but scholarly research that compares three treatments, radio, chemo, and the new wonder drug "placebo".
The details looked at 5 year survival from breast cancer:
From page 724 of the report for post menopausal women 56% survive using radio, whereas 60% survive after chemo and 62% survive using a placebo. So Placebo was the best! It means at the time of this report (dated) the best conventional treatments did more harm than good. This scares and annoys me. I have seen business fire folk for such poor results.
Admittedly placebo only wins in the less serious cancer cases, real treatment wins in more serious cases. But Jan's is in the simpler category as she has no node involvement. Placebo, maybe we want it!
It shows the utmost importance of mental state upon cure. Faith in a sovereign God that has this all under control must help enormously. I am not saying that prayer is a placebo, after all I believe Jesus physically rose from the dead. But the mental state one has from faith must aid any cure.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Oncologist consultation - test delay
Attended the hospital today for a consultation. What do we expect? FRUSTRATION. We arrive at 10:40 and leave at 15:20, still without test results for the ER status of the cancer. We have waited 63 days so far! Jan states it is he most aweful, tedious and slow outpatients she has ever attended. The patient in front of us at reception was asking for her notes to pass to her lawyer - re-assuring!
We wait for over 2 hours in an overheated overcrowded corridor before being ushered in to see an oncology registrar. She still does not have the test results for ER status. She phoned the pathology lab during the meeting, yet still no results. I can only presume that the results have been lost and will need re-testing, lets hope the hospital can find the original sample! This poor organisation must double the workload on the pathology lab for Jan's tests.
We are told they plan no chemotherapy but 4 weeks of radiotherapy whatever the results of the tests, so we are to plan for radiotherapy within 4 weeks.
We are told that the cancer was invasive ductal, rather than the invasive lobular that we had expected - it makes little difference to Jan's risk, I believe a slight increase in relative mortality of 11%.
We were told that the ER tests should have been done after the three biopsies taken on 30 Jan, so we have now waited 63 days, and expect to wait at least another 7 days. I reckon they will start testing again from a sample held hopefully in the freezer, and wonder what that does to accuracy of the tests! We are told the testing takes 2 days to complete! So why in the USA does one wait for 7 days max, when in the UK we test just as fast yet lose the results? The test lab is at the hospital entrance, we pass each time we visit, so there is no transport difficulty.The lack of test results means Jan is denied possibly useful hormone treatment for 70 days, yet once on hormones the hospital give one leaflets stating how important it is no to miss a dose!
We also go on to two other outpatient areas for blood and a lung cancer check in case breast cancer has already spread. Hence the late return home. We are phoned later that day to say lungs all clear, so those tests can be done in a day!
So how does one react? The doctors are hard working pleasant folk, probably seriously overworked because of poor organisation. For example on all three of the last visits where we have seen a doctor they have worked overtime right through lunch till 14:30 even though their lunchtime is scheduled for 13:00, and for one his private patients should have started at 14:00 at another hospital.
I believe it is chronic dis-organisation by hospital management. I consider sueing but believe one has to be able to prove a mistake has at least halved Jan's life expectancy before one can sue successfully.
In the meantime Jan is more composed and at peace than any of the other cancer patients we saw waiting, we continue with diet and exercise, and trust in the Lord. We remember the Chinese nurses comment that when in a Chinese village where there are little medical resources one just prays and sees God answer. I said to Jan, at least we have diet and exercise to to work on, her reply was "and prayer". I go out and buy two packs of broccoli, two of watercress, one spinach, two of fresh salad, and some root veg. We are going mad!
We read 2 Corinthians chapter 8 verse 1 "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." So in our discussions with the doctor we work alongside them. We have taken the attitude "how do we proceed when the notes contain a mammogram of somebody else's breast (see earlier post) and the ER tests are lost". The doctor took on board these issues. The challenge is how to find where the tumour was to apply radiotherapy when it has gone and records are lost! She phoned back later that afternoon and promised a CT scan before radiotherapy which will solve any confusion.
We wait for over 2 hours in an overheated overcrowded corridor before being ushered in to see an oncology registrar. She still does not have the test results for ER status. She phoned the pathology lab during the meeting, yet still no results. I can only presume that the results have been lost and will need re-testing, lets hope the hospital can find the original sample! This poor organisation must double the workload on the pathology lab for Jan's tests.
We are told they plan no chemotherapy but 4 weeks of radiotherapy whatever the results of the tests, so we are to plan for radiotherapy within 4 weeks.
We are told that the cancer was invasive ductal, rather than the invasive lobular that we had expected - it makes little difference to Jan's risk, I believe a slight increase in relative mortality of 11%.
We were told that the ER tests should have been done after the three biopsies taken on 30 Jan, so we have now waited 63 days, and expect to wait at least another 7 days. I reckon they will start testing again from a sample held hopefully in the freezer, and wonder what that does to accuracy of the tests! We are told the testing takes 2 days to complete! So why in the USA does one wait for 7 days max, when in the UK we test just as fast yet lose the results? The test lab is at the hospital entrance, we pass each time we visit, so there is no transport difficulty.The lack of test results means Jan is denied possibly useful hormone treatment for 70 days, yet once on hormones the hospital give one leaflets stating how important it is no to miss a dose!
We also go on to two other outpatient areas for blood and a lung cancer check in case breast cancer has already spread. Hence the late return home. We are phoned later that day to say lungs all clear, so those tests can be done in a day!
So how does one react? The doctors are hard working pleasant folk, probably seriously overworked because of poor organisation. For example on all three of the last visits where we have seen a doctor they have worked overtime right through lunch till 14:30 even though their lunchtime is scheduled for 13:00, and for one his private patients should have started at 14:00 at another hospital.
I believe it is chronic dis-organisation by hospital management. I consider sueing but believe one has to be able to prove a mistake has at least halved Jan's life expectancy before one can sue successfully.
In the meantime Jan is more composed and at peace than any of the other cancer patients we saw waiting, we continue with diet and exercise, and trust in the Lord. We remember the Chinese nurses comment that when in a Chinese village where there are little medical resources one just prays and sees God answer. I said to Jan, at least we have diet and exercise to to work on, her reply was "and prayer". I go out and buy two packs of broccoli, two of watercress, one spinach, two of fresh salad, and some root veg. We are going mad!
We read 2 Corinthians chapter 8 verse 1 "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." So in our discussions with the doctor we work alongside them. We have taken the attitude "how do we proceed when the notes contain a mammogram of somebody else's breast (see earlier post) and the ER tests are lost". The doctor took on board these issues. The challenge is how to find where the tumour was to apply radiotherapy when it has gone and records are lost! She phoned back later that afternoon and promised a CT scan before radiotherapy which will solve any confusion.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Cavilon for radiotherapy
Technical post of no relevance to anyone not preparing for radiotherapy or with deep concern for Jan. Skip if not relevant. It is NOT for the squeamish.
The NHS recommend that Jan uses a moisturising cream during radiotherapy. Maybe as part of God's provision we came across this product by 3M which claims slightly better results. It provides a protective barrier to the skin whilst undergoing radiotherapy.
I attach a link to an Australian trial in PDF format. The photos of skin reactions to radiotherapy are nasty, and show that radiotherapy is not the same as listening to the radio for an hour a day, even Terry Wogan! I have not researched in detail but remember reading these side effects can occur in 25% or so of cases. Yuk! I personally reckon radiotherapy is the con trick of the century for people of Jan's age and risk. Jan trusts them! Remember we are trying to "radio" or more accurately irradiate cancer cells to death, so it is not nice.
Cavilon product link
Cavilon trial including photos showing the potential horrible side effects to the skin here: link
The NHS recommend that Jan uses a moisturising cream during radiotherapy. Maybe as part of God's provision we came across this product by 3M which claims slightly better results. It provides a protective barrier to the skin whilst undergoing radiotherapy.
I attach a link to an Australian trial in PDF format. The photos of skin reactions to radiotherapy are nasty, and show that radiotherapy is not the same as listening to the radio for an hour a day, even Terry Wogan! I have not researched in detail but remember reading these side effects can occur in 25% or so of cases. Yuk! I personally reckon radiotherapy is the con trick of the century for people of Jan's age and risk. Jan trusts them! Remember we are trying to "radio" or more accurately irradiate cancer cells to death, so it is not nice.
Cavilon product link
Cavilon trial including photos showing the potential horrible side effects to the skin here: link
Why we will refuse chemo
We prepare to meet the oncologist tomorrow. We don't know what to expect. We arm ourselves with as much info as possible, in an attempt to have a sensible discussion about options.
We expect the recommendation to be take radiotherapy and follow on hormone therapy. A a non oncologist the following could have mistakes....treat with caution!
I read Sir Richard Peto's report to the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in December 2006, where he reports polychemotherapy improves overall survival rates after 15 years from 75% to 79.4%. I discuss with Jan "is chemo worth it for a gain of 4.4%?" To help us understand that I reckon she has a greater than 20% chance of dying in the next 15 years from other causes, such as in a car accident with me driving! So 4% is quite a small additional risk. As Christians we are quite happy discussing these statistics on death, I think they can "phase" many.
I also read that 25% of breast cancer chemo patients suffer from chemo brain. The NHS describe this as "short term memory loss" almost as though it is a short term transitory effect. It is NOT, as far as I see it is a permanent state where the brain becomes almost "read only" in computer speak. So one can remenber ones early life, Jan's training as a nurse and teacher, our family history, but one cannot remember new information such as what one had for breakfast. This horrifies Jan, we reckon we will refuse chemo if offered.
See next post on Cavilon to undertand some of our other fears of radiotherapy, yet we pray and leave these fears with God.
We expect the recommendation to be take radiotherapy and follow on hormone therapy. A a non oncologist the following could have mistakes....treat with caution!
I read Sir Richard Peto's report to the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in December 2006, where he reports polychemotherapy improves overall survival rates after 15 years from 75% to 79.4%. I discuss with Jan "is chemo worth it for a gain of 4.4%?" To help us understand that I reckon she has a greater than 20% chance of dying in the next 15 years from other causes, such as in a car accident with me driving! So 4% is quite a small additional risk. As Christians we are quite happy discussing these statistics on death, I think they can "phase" many.
I also read that 25% of breast cancer chemo patients suffer from chemo brain. The NHS describe this as "short term memory loss" almost as though it is a short term transitory effect. It is NOT, as far as I see it is a permanent state where the brain becomes almost "read only" in computer speak. So one can remenber ones early life, Jan's training as a nurse and teacher, our family history, but one cannot remember new information such as what one had for breakfast. This horrifies Jan, we reckon we will refuse chemo if offered.
See next post on Cavilon to undertand some of our other fears of radiotherapy, yet we pray and leave these fears with God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
