Joe B

Just said mine for you..... heres hoping the Scooter delivery is immediate

Great news Ray...... I'll bet you are on top of the world today, thats awesome !

My wbc's were just recently very high... mine were artifically brought high by Nuepegen shots after the chemo brought them too low to begin with (thats a whole different story...) The symtoms I felt when they were high were very similiar to what you are describing..... I agree with Dean, this could just be an infection you have..... could be alot of different things.... did they order a chest x-ray or CT?

TBone, I had a very similair experience at MD Anderson (no waiting, very professional & courteous, well run place.....). I am sure that your ONC will find out the specifics about the chemo and the rest of what the consulting doctor told you when they talk..... Best of luck..... glad you felt the trip was worthwhile. The main thing I DID get that was tangible from my visit to Houston, was that they specified in the patgology report that the tumor I had removed had prominient BAC features. that in of itself was very helpful. Joe

Lyrics of "I can only imagine" by Mercy Me. Written by a Christian giving his thoughts about what it will be like when he meets God face to face....... This is even more powerful when the lyrics are set to music, beautiful song, really. I can only imagine Artist: Mercy Me I can only imagine what it will be like When I walk by Your side I can only imagine what my eyes will see When Your face is before me I can only imagine I can only imagine (Chorus next) Surrounded by Your glory What will my heart feel? Will I dance for You Jesus? Or in awe of You be still? Will I stand in Your presence? Or to my knees will I fall? Will I sing hallelujah? Will I be able to speak at all? I can only imagine I can only imagine I can only imagine when that day comes And I find myself standing in the Son I can only imagine when all I will do Is forever, forever worship You I can only imagine I can only imagine (chorus 2x)(ad-lib) I can only imagine When all I will do Is forever, forever worship You I can only imagine.

KC, I do believe its possible that radiation could produce pain in the area radiated....

Fay, I like your spirit. I agree with you completely, and I sense a very deep frustration with the medical comunity ---many of us share that frustration. I AM NOT A NUMBER! a statistic, or merely a physical body for their experiments... Cancer CAN be beaten, and I am sick of those in the medical community that limit their thinking and ingenuity to accept the unacceptable. I would like each and everyone of them to have to publish their own outcomes with patients, maybe then they would think outside the box? why is it so hard for doctors to show enthusiam - even we it is totally called for? ......there are some very good minds that have no passion for the field they have chosen..... I am a child of God.. and expect myself & everyone to be treated that way..... God bless you Fay... keep up that fighting spirit.... You are in my prayers... Joe

TAnn, I, too, have had a very tough time in regard to Taxotere and wbc. Mine have been as low as .6 (round 1) . This last time (round 2) they had me administer Neupogen right after (4 shots) and I registered 1.3 on Monday, so they had me take 3 more shots and be re-tested.. yesterday I was at 16.8 - way higher than the upper end of the normal range (4-11) I am feeling achy all over (probably from the very fast production of wbc's)... my lungs feeling a heavy as well......

David A, I am praying for you ..... Have faith and stay strong... don't read too much into it..... Many people here on this board are praying for you..take care... Joe

David A Rochelle lives too close - I cant take any chances....

welcome Satcy... Glad you found us. Praying for you and your Dad..... Joe

Shelly - You and your father are in my prayers........ Joe

was that me giving her a hard time? No, what I meant was that I had heard that there were some peope harrassing her about this... yeah , thats it.......

great news!

I admit I wa sone one the ones giving Heather a hard time... but hey, we need good news around here... Congrats to you Heather! Married life is a good thing. You hav e much to look forward to... Joe

Judy, I like the idea of chemo sensitivity... but essentially you would have to delay treatment in order to have this done properly (it will take some time to find a place and, send the tumor sample and then receive the results) I guess you could start treatement and change course after you get teh results back. Don't rely in your doctors to arrange this, they probably wont be of much help. I had Cisplatin& Etoposide along with radiation for stage IIIA (after I had surgery). It was based on the results of a European study that demonstrated a statistically significant survival advantage (of 5%) for patients receiving that combination compared to those that just had radiation. It was the first study to show a survival advantage (after surgery) with a chem combination. Close to 50% of stage II and IIIA patients in the study survived at least 5 years. many Oncoogist are going back to Cisplatin due to belief that it is more effective than Carboplatin (although harsher than Carboplatin) Hope this helps... Joe

It took about 3 weeks for my cravings to go away. I still eat fruit , and use a juicer to juice fruit in the mornings. I eat plain yogurt with granola for a treat....... I feel al ot more energetic... Still have an occassional craving for a piece of cake, or a milkshake..... I do eat a piece of cake at birthday celebrations (small) I would suggest trying to cut back,and if you have a little relapse- don't beat yourself up over it.... just get back on the plan and try again. prayer can help as well....... it's a lifestyle change. We are now trying to eat just whole foods and organic produce, free range poultry. "If it doesn't sprout, or rot... throw it out" Its very hard for most people - because culturally its all around us, and I know many people feel its too big of a quality of life thing to give up....

welcome, and congratulations on 1 year ! We have the same diagnosis, I started this roller coaster ride in September all from a chest xray. I hang out mostly in the spiritual & alternative/ complimentary area's. Hopefully we'll see you there... Joe

Is it Safe to Use Antioxidant Supplements with Chemotherapy? A Healthnotes Newswire Opinion By Matt Brignall, ND Healthnotes Newswire (October 10, 2002)—A new clinical trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2002;20:3478–83) provides the clearest evidence to date that taking antioxidant supplements does not interfere with the efficacy of cancer chemotherapy. This new study involved 52 people being treated for advanced colon cancer with a chemotherapy drug called oxaliplatin. Half of these individuals also received intravenous treatment with an antioxidant called glutathione (at an average dose of approximately 2,500 mg each time they received chemotherapy), while the other half received a placebo. The participants receiving intravenous glutathione had a significantly lower incidence of chemotherapy-induced nerve damage than did the control group, allowing more of the chemotherapy drug to be safely administered. Perhaps more important, the addition of glutathione to the treatment regimen did not reduce the ability of the chemotherapy to shrink the size of the colon tumors. In fact, the people who received the glutathione treatment were slightly (but not significantly) more likely to have tumor shrinkage. Antioxidants During Chemotherapy: A Hot Topic Antioxidants, including glutathione, are agents that protect the body from damage by unstable molecules called free radicals. There are many dietary antioxidants, including vitamins C and E, beta-carotene, and coenzyme Q10. Many commonly used herbs also contain antioxidants. Glutathione is present in small amounts in the diet, but it appears to be poorly absorbed; however, glutathione is also synthesized in the body from certain amino acids, and it appears to be one of the most important antioxidants in various tissues in the body. Because several of the common cancer treatments (including radiation and many types of chemotherapy) work in part by producing free radicals, many doctors and researchers have voiced concern that antioxidants may reduce the beneficial effect of these therapies. However, there is very little evidence from scientific research that this interference actually occurs. In fact, the overwhelming majority of test tube, animal, and preliminary human studies have concluded either that there was no effect of the antioxidant on the tumor-fighting ability of the cancer treatment, or that the antioxidant enhanced the anticancer effect of the therapy. In addition, antioxidants often protected against some of the most common side effects of cancer treatment, such as organ damage, low blood counts, and diarrhea. Critics of the concurrent use of antioxidants and chemotherapy often point to the lack of clinical trials in humans. Previous preliminary clinical trials, however, have concluded that the antioxidants ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba), melatonin, coenzyme Q10, and N-acetylcysteine did not appreciably reduce the effect of cancer therapies. Pharmaceutical antioxidants such as amifostine and mesna have also been extensively studied in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiation, and have not appeared to cause a negative interaction. Many prominent cancer scientists believe that the dietary and pharmaceutical antioxidants prevent some of the worst side effects of cancer treatments. Should People Undergoing Chemotherapy Take Glutathione? Glutathione is available as an oral supplement, although only a small amount of orally administered glutathione is absorbed intact into the blood stream. At present there is no evidence that taking glutathione orally would have the same effect as that reported for intravenous glutathione in the new study. Unfortunately, this clinical trial doesn’t answer the question of whether it is safe or desirable to use glutathione with other types of chemotherapy. It also doesn’t address the issue of using other antioxidants with chemotherapy. However, the results of the new study, when combined with those of previous research, provide a strong rationale for intensive research on the risks and benefits of combining antioxidants with conventional cancer therapy. People interested in using antioxidants along with conventional cancer treatment should talk this issue over with their doctors. Matt Brignall, ND is a graduate of the University of Michigan and Bastyr University. He works at the Seattle Cancer Treatment and Wellness Center, where he specializes in complementary medicine approaches to cancer. He has been published in several journals, including Alternative Medicine Review, Coping With Cancer, and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brignall also teaches clinical nutrition at Bastyr University in Kenmore, WA. He is a regular contributor to Healthnotes, Healthnotes Newswire, and the Healthnotes Quick!Reference series.

Sugar and Cancer Originally printed by The Alternative Research Foundation It puzzles me why the simple concept "sugar feeds cancer" can be so dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan. Of the 4 million cancer patients being treated in America today, hardly any are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being told to "just eat good foods." Most patients I work with arrive with a complete lack of nutritional advice. I believe many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their outcome if they controlled the supply of cancer's preferred fuel, glucose. By slowing the cancer's growth, patients allow their immune systems and medical debulking therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery to reduce the bulk of the tumor mass -- to catch up to the disease. Controlling one's blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, meditation and prescription drugs when necessary can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program. The sound bite -- sugar feeds cancer -- is simple. The explanation is a little more complex. The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic glycolysis -- a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic byproduct -- compared to normal tissues. The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup. Thus, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic pH. This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38 moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose. By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the available energy in the food supply and the body's calorie stores, the cancer is "wasting" energy, and the patient becomes tired and undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting. It is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition, or cachexia. Hence, cancer therapies should encompass regulating blood-glucose levels via diet, supplements, non-oral solutions for cachectic patients who lose their appetite, medication, exercise, gradual weight loss and stress reduction. Professional guidance and patient self-discipline are crucial at this point in the cancer process. The quest is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates from the diet but rather to control blood glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and bolster immune function. The glycemic index is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the digestion and absorption process, which provides a healthier, more gradual infusion of sugars into the bloodstream. Conversely, a high rating means blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. This rapid fluctuation of blood-sugar levels is unhealthy because of the stress it places on the body Sugar in the Body and Diet Sugar is a generic term used to identify simple carbohydrates, which includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose; and disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar). Think of these sugars as different-shaped bricks in a wall. When fructose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index registers as healthier, since this simple sugar is slowly absorbed in the gut, then converted to glucose in the liver. This makes for "time-release foods," which offer a more gradual rise and fall in blood-glucose levels. If glucose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index will be higher and less healthy for the individual. As the brick wall is torn apart in digestion, the glucose is pumped across the intestinal wall directly into the bloodstream, rapidly raising blood-glucose levels. In other words, there is a "window of efficacy" for glucose in the blood: levels too low make one feel lethargic and can create clinical hypoglycemia; levels too high start creating the rippling effect of diabetic health problems. The 1997 American Diabetes Association blood-glucose standards consider 126 mg glucose/dL blood or greater to be diabetic; 111 to 125 mg/dL is impaired glucose tolerance and less than 110 mg/dL is considered normal. Meanwhile, the Paleolithic diet of our ancestors, which consisted of lean meats, vegetables and small amounts of whole grains, nuts, seeds and fruits, is estimated to have generated blood glucose levels between 60 and 90 mg/dL. Obviously, today's high-sugar diets are having unhealthy effects as far as blood-sugar is concerned. Excess blood glucose may initiate yeast overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and other health conditions. Understanding and using the glycemic index is an important aspect of diet modification for cancer patients. However, there is also evidence that sugars may feed cancer more efficiently than starches (comprised of long chains of simple sugars), making the index slightly misleading. A study of rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example, found the animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast cancer. The glycemic index is a useful tool in guiding the cancer patient toward a healthier diet, but it is not infallible. By using the glycemic index alone, one could be led to thinking a cup of white sugar is healthier than a baked potato. This is because the glycemic index rating of a sugary food may be lower than that of a starchy food. To be safe, I recommend less fruit, more vegetables, and little to no refined sugars in the diet of cancer patients. What the Literature Says A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are sensitive to blood-glucose levels. Sixty-eight mice were injected with an aggressive strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high blood-sugar (hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar (hypoglycemia). There was a dose-dependent response in which the lower the blood glucose, the greater the survival rate. After 70 days, 8 of 24 hyperglycemic mice survived compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and 19 of 20 hypoglycemic. This suggests that regulating sugar intake is key to slowing breast tumor growth. In a human study, 10 healthy people were assessed for fasting blood-glucose levels and the phagocytic index of neutrophils, which measures immune-cell ability to envelop and destroy invaders such as cancer. Eating 100 g carbohydrates from glucose, sucrose, honey and orange juice all significantly decreased the capacity of neutrophils to engulf bacteria. Starch did not have this effect. A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients. Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women. Limiting sugar consumption may not be the only line of defense. In fact, an interesting botanical extract from the avocado plant (Persea americana) is showing promise as a new cancer adjunct. When a purified avocado extract called mannoheptulose was added to a number of tumor cell lines tested in vitro by researchers in the Department of Biochemistry at Oxford University in Britain, they found it inhibited tumor cell glucose uptake by 25 to 75 percent, and it inhibited the enzyme glucokinase responsible for glycolysis. It also inhibited the growth rate of the cultured tumor cell lines. The same researchers gave lab animals a 1.7 mg/g body weight dose of mannoheptulose for five days; it reduced tumors by 65 to 79 percent. Based on these studies, there is good reason to believe that avocado extract could help cancer patients by limiting glucose to the tumor cells. Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research Institute and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a chemical called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in cachectic cancer patients. Gold's work demonstrated hydrazine sulfate's ability to slow and reverse cachexia in advanced cancer patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed 101 cancer patients taking either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day or placebo. After one month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients increased their weight, compared to 53 percent on placebo. A similar study by the same principal researchers, partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those who took hydrazine sulfate and were in good physical condition before the study began lived an average of 17 weeks longer. The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in tumorigenesis. Consider the million-dollar positive emission tomography device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. PET scans are used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to assess whether present protocols are effective. In Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that oncologists, or cancer doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy (SCMT) protocol. Conceived by Manfred von Ardenne in Germany in 1965, SCMT entails injecting patients with glucose to increase blood-glucose concentrations. This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via lactic acid formation. In turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity of the malignant tumors and also induces rapid growth of the cancer. Patients are then given whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) to further stress the cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation. SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized cancer or recurrent primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany. Five-year survival rates in SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the complete rate of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent. The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then treats the tumor with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in outcome. The irrefutable role of glucose in the growth and metastasis of cancer cells can enhance many therapies. Some of these include diets designed with the glycemic index in mind to regulate increases in blood glucose, hence selectively starving the cancer cells; low-glucose TPN solutions; avocado extract to inhibit glucose uptake in cancer cells; hydrazine sulfate to inhibit gluconeogenesis in cancer cells; and SCMT. A female patient in her 50s, with lung cancer, came to our clinic, having been given a death sentence by her Florida oncologist. She was cooperative and understood the connection between nutrition and cancer. She changed her diet considerably, leaving out 90 percent of the sugar she used to eat. She found that wheat bread and oat cereal now had their own wild sweetness, even without added sugar. With appropriately restrained medical therapy -- including high-dose radiation targeted to tumor sites and fractionated chemotherapy, a technique that distributes the normal one large weekly chemo dose into a 60-hour infusion lasting days -- a good attitude and an optimal nutrition program which included Sam's formula nine times/day, she beat her terminal lung cancer. I saw her last month, five years later and still disease-free, probably looking better than the doctor who told her there was no hope. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: Nearly all of us are addicted to sugar. There is not one single food item that is generally more damaging to health. The problem is that most of us are addicted to it. The Hellers in their book, Carbohydrate Addicts, discuss the evidence supporting this link. I do not agree with their one hour reward meal, but otherwise the book helps one understand the depth of this problem. Related Articles: Dangers of Sugar Sugar Ruins Health Cancer/Sugar Connection

http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/8/sugar_cancer.htm

an older article, that references the start of teh Vitamin C debate, but does indicate that the real effects of C on cancer cells remain to be determined.... http://www.medcomres.com/articles/antioxidants_cancer.htm

Is this whats referred to as "TM"??? I may be thinking of something else I read a very intriguing article out of the university of Michigan. They are seeing immediate results with it in certain types of tumors. Apparently it reduces the copper level in the blood, and resulted in tumor reduction in many patients. I have read that you can try to reduce your own copper thru diet, but its very hard to do (highest sources of copper are shell fish, and red meat) http://www.cancerprotocol.com/role_of_copper.html

My basic understanding is differentation has to do with the way the cells are "organized" under a microscope. from best to worse--- well, moderate, poor. Well differentiated- means they are close to be the make up of a normal cell. It is the best type of tumor to have. Moderately- would be less organized and faster gowing Poor- would be the least organized, and fastest growing