Understanding breast cancer testimonials

Doctors refuse to address or deal with many issues
concerning breast cancer & its care, ... including
nutrition, supplements, additional alt-type therapies (after
chemotherapy & radiation), good bloodwork & testing, etc.

The docs want to do biopsies before doing surgery, even when
they're sure it's cancer. Then they'll schedule the surgery,
for days, weeks or months later.

Poking holes in the cancerous lumps, & allowing this fluid
to enter & circulate in the bloodstream & body for a while,
doesn't seem like a good idea.

Cutting the lumps into pieces during surgery, & allowing
this fluid to enter the bloodstream & body, doesn't seem
like a good idea. It would probably be better to remove the
lumps whole.

The six-week or longer wait before starting chemotherapy,
doesn't seem like a good idea. It would seem best to start
chemo as soon as possible.

The lack of any bloodwork (testing) to detect the cancer, &
to show whether or not the chemotherapy has worked at all,
... seems ridiculous.

After chemo & rads, the docs mostly sit back, wait, & count
the number of women who drop dead, ... those who suffer to
death horribly & painfully, without $$$, help or care
(thanks in part to bad docs).

Also, no consideration seems given to the quality of life
after your body has been poisoned & debilitated by
chemotherapy, estrogen-blocking-drugs, & such, ... & when
you can't find or get good basic medical care, after
cancer care.

The doc's main concern seems to be how many women drop dead
& when, ... & which PHARMA companies will gift & benefit
them for doing things their way.

Breast cancer care is still in its primitive stages, where
Organized Medicine is concerned. It's PHARMA drugs, monopoly
& racketeering, ... govt-encouraged & enforced, medical
malpractice & neglect.

Surgery might can help. Radiation might can help.
Chemotherapy might can help. However, the doctors need to
offer a more technical, practical, logical, can-work plan
that includes other things, & also includes aftercare. They
need to make sense.

The docs' "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." approach, does
NOT work when seeking medical care, because many doctors
prove so dishonest & dastardly, so deadly.

Bad docs are like used car salesmen on the worst lots in
town, trying to push/force bad merchandise at top prices.

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Understanding breast cancer testimonials
From: [email hidden]
Date: 5/3/2004 4:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The docs want to do biopsies before doing surgery, even
when they're sure it's cancer. Then they'll schedule the
surgery, for days, weeks or months later.

ok...and HOW do you suggest they "KNOW" it is
cancer...without a biopsy??

depending upon the "stage" of the cancer...days or weeks
usually do not affect the outcome...but allow the woman to
consider her options...get second opinions..etc..."months
later"....not in the USA

I cannot believe you believe a biopsy should not be done
prior to surgery..yikes...what planet do you live on??

Quoted message said:

Cutting the lumps into pieces during surgery, & allowing
this fluid to enter the bloodstream & body, doesn't seem
like a good idea. It

again..unless you are a surgeon..which we know you are
NOT...this simply is NOT the way a lumpectomy is
done....EVERY effort is made to take the lump out in ONE
piece

Quoted message said:

The lack of any bloodwork (testing) to detect the cancer,
& to show

ahhhh..bloodwork does not detect breast cancer...

Quoted message said:

& to show whether or not the chemotherapy has worked at
all, ... seems ridiculous.

have no clue where you are going with
this...scans...etc...are useful in this
realm..again..bloodwork does NOT show malignancy of
breast cancer..

Quoted message said:

After chemo & rads, the docs mostly sit back, wait, & count
the number of women who drop dead, ... those who suffer to
death horribly & painfully, without $$$, help or care
(thanks in part to bad docs).

wow...now THAT is among the dumbest statements made
here...."sit back and wait and count the number who
drop dead"

sure you are not thinking of Hulda Clark?? >to the quality
of life after your

Quoted message said:

body has been poisoned & debilitated by chemotherapy, estrogen-blocking-
drugs, & such, ... & when you can't find or get good basic
medical care, after cancer care.

again...I realize YOU think there are NO good docs...many of
us in the profession can attest that your experiences are
the minority..

Quoted message said:

The doc's main concern seems to be how many women drop dead
& when, ... & which PHARMA companies will gift & benefit
them for doing things their way.

again you make NO sense with the above statement....\\

Quoted message said:

Breast cancer care is still in its primitive stages, where
Organized Medicine is concerned. It's PHARMA drugs,
monopoly & racketeering, ... govt-encouraged & enforced,
medical malpractice & neglect.

no...hardly...breast cancer treatment WAS primitive in 1962
when my mother was diagnosed..at 47....they did the best
they could...but with chemo she would not have died...at 53

Quoted message said:

Surgery might can help. Radiation might can help.
Chemotherapy might can help. However, the doctors need to
offer a more technical, practical, logical, can-work plan
that includes other things, & also includes aftercare. They
need to make sense.

T Surgery might can help. Radiation might can help.
Chemotherapy might can help. However, the doctors need
to offer a more technical, practical, logical, can-
work plan th

Quoted message said:

includes other things, & also includes aftercare. They need
to make sense.

I know.."in Texas the docs are living in the dark
ages"....to believe you..

Quoted message said:

Bad docs are like used car salesmen on the worst lots in
town, trying to push/force bad merchandise at top prices.

that would be funny.....if it weren't so pathetic....

hawki.....

In article
<[email hidden]
om.au>,

Peter Moran said:

There are as few circulating wherein the patient
attributes their survival for five years without
conventional treatment to "alternatives". Sadly, several
such women now have ulcerating and painful cancerous
masses, but they remain proud of what seems a worse than
Pyrrhic victory over the evil forces of organized
medicine.

Even the ones who are lucky enough not to have developed
such lesions were almost certainly not "cured."

Quoted message said:

We happen to know what the five year survival rate of
untreated breast cancer is, and it was about twenty per
cent, even with the more advanced cancers that were usual
early last century.

Indeed. Unfortunately, for those women, such cancers could
cause them horrendous suffering for several years before
finally doing them in.

Quoted message said:

What has happened here is that these women have a low-
grade late-metastasizing variety of breast cancer. They
once had an excellent chance of being completely cured,
but now face one of the worst possible outcomes of breast
cancer. They are learning why doctors have been prepared
to use drastic measures when there is the possibility of
completely eliminating the cancer.

Sad but true. One of the nastiest fates that can befall a
breast cancer patient is to develop locally advanced disease
that invades underlying structures but does not metastasize.
Either that, or to develop a chest wall recurrence after
mastectomy. They can face years of pain caused by a
fungating, bleeding, stinky, necrotic tumor mass that slowly
enlarges. Radiation and chemotherapy can often palliate such
disease, but it almost always comes back. In a few cases
I've seen, death from metastases would be merciful in
comparison.

Quoted message said:

Others make similar claims having merely had a lumpectomy
for a small cancer , then refusing radiotherapy and using
only alternatives. They are among the lucky ones who avoid
local recurrence after lumpectomy, which can run as high
as thirty per cent within five years. Of course, credit is
given to the "alternatives".

This is the most common variety of altie claim for breast
cancer. It is a very deceptive claim, (although usually not
intentionally deceptive, on the part of the patients making
the testimonials, who genuinely, albeit erroneously,
attribute their survival to the "alternatives" they took).
These days, thanks to mammography and increased awareness
(both products of eeevvvilll conventional medicine), most
breast cancers are detected while still small and in the
early stage.

Breast cancers smaller than 2 cm (and especially smaller
than 1 cm) that have not yet metastasized to the axillary
lymph nodes have a pretty high "cure" rate with surgery
alone. Ah, the alties challenge us, if surgery alone is so
great and cures the majority of such early stage tumors,
then why do we need to give chemotherapy, radiation therapy,
and/or hormonal therapy? Simple. First, local recurrence
after lumpectomy alone is, as Peter points out, 30-40%.
Radiation therapy reduces it to around 10%, and those local
recurrences can usually be salvaged with mastectomy if
necessary with no effect on long term survival. Second,
although the survival rate after surgery alone is good,
chemotherapy makes it even better, adding an absolute
survival benefit that is on the order of 3-5% (although for
a patient with a 1 cm node-negative tumor, whose expected
survival without chemotherapy is close to 90%, that works
out to a relative survival benefit of 30-50%).

Thus, what one has to remember when evaluating the
"testimonials" for "alternative medicines" of breast cancer
survivors who refused radiation and chemotherapy after their
surgery is that most of them had early stage disease, which
is highly treatable even with surgery alone, and that
therefore most of them probably have a pretty good chance of
long term survival without such adjuvant therapies. They
simply chose not to make that good chance even better. They
simply erroneously attribute their survival not to the
modality that actually "cured" them (surgery) but rather to
the "alternative medicines" that they wish to believe were
the cures. Even in the case of more advanced tumors (larger,
node-positive tumors, for instance), depending on the exact
stage, five year survival can be as high 40-50% without any
adjuvant therapy. It's just considerably higher with
adjuvant therapy.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] wrote:

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

The docs want to do biopsies before doing surgery, even
when they're sure it's cancer.

Would you rather that docs do radical surgery WITHOUT a
tissue diagnosis? How responsible would that be? Not very.
Given that around 80% of biopsies in general turn out not to
be cancer, we'd be doing a lot of "curative" operations for
benign disease, wouldn't we? Even highly suspicious lesions
are not always cancer.

Quoted message said:

Then they'll schedule the surgery, for days, weeks or
months later.

In the U.S., it's usually only around 1-4 weeks, sometimes
days, and delays of a few weeks from diagnosis to surgery
have never been shown to affect outcome. I understand it's
hard on the patient from a psychological standpoint to wait.
I really do. But from a cancer treatment standpoint, it has
no detectable effect. I can't resist pointing out at this
juncture that, if you don't like how long it takes in the
U.S., try medical systems in countries with single payer
plans, where all too often it does take months for a woman
to get her surgery.

Quoted message said:

Poking holes in the cancerous lumps, & allowing this fluid

What fluid? Most breast cancers are solid.

Quoted message said:

to enter & circulate in the bloodstream & body for a while,
doesn't seem like a good idea.

Do you have some evidence to show that needle or core needle
biopsies have an adverse effect on breast cancer survival?
"Doesn't seem like a good idea" doesn't cut it. There is no
evidence that doing biopsies first and then surgery
increases either local failure or distant failure rates or
decreases survival. And there is a definite benefit from
doing a needle biopsy first. If you get the diagnosis that
way, the cancer can be dealt with in one definitive surgery
instead of two (a surgical excisional biopsy for diagnosis
followed by definitive surgery). The lymphatics are not
disrupted from a surgical excision, so that sentinel lymph
node mapping is more likely to be successful and accurate.

Quoted message said:

Cutting the lumps into pieces during surgery, & allowing
this fluid to enter the bloodstream & body, doesn't seem
like a good idea. It would probably be better to remove
the lumps whole.

Surgeons DO generally try to remove lumps or mammographic
abnormalities whole, not so much because it matters in terms
of survival, but more because it's hard to tell if your
surgical margins are clean if you remove a tumor piecemeal.
In any case, again, there is no evidence that doing biopsies
first and then surgery increases either local failure or
distant failure rates or decreases survival.

Quoted message said:

The six-week or longer wait before starting chemotherapy,
doesn't seem like a good idea. It would seem best to start
chemo as soon as possible.

Starting chemotherapy less than three weeks after surgery is
not a great idea. Chemotherapy impairs wound healing and not
waiting long enough increases the complication rate.
Ideally, the best time to start chemotherapy is usually
between 3-4 weeks after surgery, but there is little
evidence that waiting six weeks is worse than waiting four.

Quoted message said:

The lack of any bloodwork (testing) to detect the cancer,
& to show whether or not the chemotherapy has worked at
all, ... seems ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all, as you would know if you knew
what you were talking about here. The reason no bloodwork is
used to detect the cancer and follow response to treatment
is because there just aren't any good, reliable tumor
markers for breast cancer! Believe me, scientists and
oncologists have been looking for such a marker for decades!
Oncologist would love it if there were a marker for breast
cancer that they could follow to monitor response to
therapy, as they can monitor PSA for prostate cancer or CEA
for colon cancer, for instance. It would make treatment and
monitoring for recurrence *so* much easier. Unfortunately
biology didn't provide us with one. Believe me, we'd all
love it if someone could find a reliable breast cancer
marker that could be measured with a simple blood test. Many
oncologists try to use a couple of proteins as markers, but
they are not reliable, nor are they specific to breast
cancer. (I sometimes suspect because they can't stand not
having a good, reliable breast cancer marker and therefore
latch on to these proteins as markers out of desperation.)

Quoted message said:

After chemo & rads, the docs mostly sit back, wait, &
count the number of women who drop dead, ... those who
suffer to death horribly & painfully, without $$$, help or
care (thanks in part to bad docs).

Oh, please, you're getting very melodramatic here.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, since it is obvious
to me that you don't understand the issues involved in
followup care. Let's take an example. If a woman gets, for
example, a bone or liver metastasis after curative surgery,
chemotherapy, and radiation for breast cancer, you probably
already know that, at present, there is no treatment that
will cure the recurrence. (Remember, we are talking about
distant metastatic disease, not recurrences in the breast,
which can be quite effectively treated and often cured with
mastectomy.) What you probably don't know is that there is
no evidence that beginning treatment when such a distant
metastasis is early is any better than beginning treatment
when it becomes symptomatic, both in terms of overall
survival and quality of life. So, the question becomes: Is
it worth it to get serial CT scans, etc., in order to try to
"detect" a distant recurrence early, rather than get such
studies only if the patient develops symptoms? The answer is
not so clear-cut.

Quoted message said:

Also, no consideration seems given to the quality of life
after your body has been poisoned & debilitated by
chemotherapy, estrogen-blocking-drugs, & such, ... & when
you can't find or get good basic medical care, after
cancer care.

This is, plain and simple, a load of [censored]. Huge
considerations are given to quality of life issues
these days.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Peter Moran said:

There are as few circulating wherein the patient
attributes their survival for five years without
conventional treatment to "alternatives". Sadly, several
such women now have ulcerating and painful cancerous
masses, but they remain proud of what seems a worse than
Pyrrhic victory over the evil forces of organized
medicine.

We happen to know what the five year survival rate of
untreated breast cancer is, and it was about twenty per
cent, even with the more advanced cancers that were usual
early last century.

What has happened here is that these women have a low-
grade late-metastasizing variety of breast cancer. They
once had an excellent chance of being completely cured,
but now face one of the worst possible outcomes of breast
cancer. They are learning why doctors have been prepared
to use drastic measures when there is the possibility of
completely eliminating the cancer.

Others make similar claims having merely had a lumpectomy
for a small cancer , then refusing radiotherapy and using
only alternatives. They are among the lucky ones who avoid
local recurrence after lumpectomy, which can run as high
as thirty per cent within five years. Of course, credit is
given to the "alternatives".

Peter Moran

Hope you don't mind, but I think this is worth cross-posting
to a.s.c.b J

In order for the docs to have some credibility, they need to
come up with tests (bloodwork & such, & not just biopsy) to
indicate or show the cancer, ... to show what kind of cancer
it is, ... to show whether it's fast or slow growing, ... to
show which treatments might work on it, ... & then to show,
with testing such as bloodwork, that their treatments are
working, or have worked.

Even the biopsy results, don't show most of this. Nor is the
research being done with enough testing, to see exactly
which women & their cancers can benefit from it, & which
treatments will seriously sicken & injure, or kill.

My experience with the estrogen-blocker-type meds (Arimidex
& such) was nightmarish, & caused additional permanent
health problems such as sudden acute lymphedema (swelling of
the arm), ... another condition which the docs don't seem to
understand or know much about treating.

After chemotherapy & radiation, there are no tests to see if
these treatments worked. You're declared "cured" if you
survive them. This is stupid!

After that, one CAT scan after another is done, looking for
new fourth-inch-size or larger lumps, & that's about it.

This is more cr*p-care than cancer care, & it's very
expensive.

While surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy may be of
value in treating breast cancer, ... we need some good
testing & diagnosis that can show it.

The docs' ordering CAT scans over & over, & counting
the number of women on each treatment who die, ...
without the docs' ordering good bloodwork & testing,
discussing supplements & nutrition in detail,
discussing alternative/add-on-type therapies & trying
some, ... seems not only medical malpractice & neglect,
but it feels like major betrayal & murder.

Breast cancer detection, treatment & care, seem to still be
quite primitive, inadequate, brutal, ... & extremely
expensive.

---------

Breast cancer is a deadly & dastardly disease, which I don't
think can be controlled much or cured solely with alternative-
type therapies, ... but much the same can be said, of only
using the organized medicine approach too.

Doctors need to work with us, in using both approaches to
breast cancer treatment & care.

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

hawki73 wrote:

ok...and HOW do you suggest they "KNOW" it is
cancer...without a biopsy?? depending upon the "stage" of
the cancer...days or weeks usually do not affect the
outcome...but allow the woman to consider her options...get
second opinions..etc..."months later"....not in the USA I
cannot believe you believe a biopsy should not be done prior
to surgery..yikes...what planet do you live on??

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

One problem is, that once a doctor declares a lump not to be
cancer, ... then most other docs won't contradict this, no
matter what, esp. in Texas & Louisiana.

Later I learned, that the first doc hadn't even sent the
fluid he'd taken from the lump to the lab, & had just
declared it Not Cancer. (March 2000)

As the lump continued to grow, I kept going to doctors
asking (begging) for a second opinion, & being turned away,
... although most docs did bill my insurance company for the
"visit", for nothing.

When the lump got to be about 6 by 6 by 2 inches big (Oct
2001), had a certain shape & feel to it, & the breast turned
yellow/orange & started to look pit-marked all over, ... the
docs finally admitted that it might be cancer. Then they
said it was definitely cancer.

After that, they insisted on the biopsies, which consisted
of taking a dozen or so punches (punch holes) from the
breast, ... then my waiting a month or so for surgery.

No doctor would remove the breast, without doing
biopsies first.

Of course, the biopsies caused bleeding, & you have to hold
ice packs on that breast.

It would seem like this approach (biopsies on a known
cancerous lump), could spread the cancer.

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

You don't need a biopsy to 'prove' it is cancer. Docs are
good at knowing whether something is a cancer or not. It's
the 'sceptics' that ask for biopsies. Anth

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040503203321.28807.00000825@mb-
m28.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Understanding breast cancer testimonials
From: [email hidden] Date: 5/3/2004 4:44 PM Pacific
Daylight Time Message-id: <20724-4096D975-255@storefull-
3198.bay.webtv.net>

Quoted message said:

The docs want to do biopsies before doing surgery, even
when they're sure it's cancer. Then they'll schedule the
surgery, for days, weeks or months later.

ok...and HOW do you suggest they "KNOW" it is
cancer...without a biopsy??

depending upon the "stage" of the cancer...days or weeks
usually do not

affect

Quoted message said:

the outcome...but allow the woman to consider her
options...get second opinions..etc..."months later"....not
in the USA

I cannot believe you believe a biopsy should not be done
prior to surgery..yikes...what planet do you live on??

Quoted message said:

Cutting the lumps into pieces during surgery, & allowing
this fluid to enter the bloodstream & body, doesn't seem
like a good idea. It

again..unless you are a surgeon..which we know you are
NOT...this simply

is NOT

Quoted message said:

the way a lumpectomy is done....EVERY effort is made to
take the lump out

in

Quoted message said:

ONE piece

Quoted message said:

The lack of any bloodwork (testing) to detect the cancer,
& to show

ahhhh..bloodwork does not detect breast cancer...

Quoted message said:

& to show whether or not the chemotherapy has worked at
all, ... seems ridiculous.

have no clue where you are going with
this...scans...etc...are useful in

this

Quoted message said:

realm..again..bloodwork does NOT show malignancy of breast
cancer..

Quoted message said:

After chemo & rads, the docs mostly sit back, wait, &
count the number of women who drop dead, ... those who
suffer to death horribly & painfully, without $$$, help
or care (thanks in part to bad docs).

wow...now THAT is among the dumbest statements made
here...."sit back and

wait

Quoted message said:

and count the number who drop dead"

sure you are not thinking of Hulda Clark?? >to the quality
of life after

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

body has been poisoned & debilitated by chemotherapy, estrogen-blocking-
drugs, & such, ... & when you can't find or get good
basic medical care, after cancer care.

again...I realize YOU think there are NO good docs...many
of us in the profession can attest that your experiences
are the minority..

Quoted message said:

The doc's main concern seems to be how many women drop
dead & when, ... & which PHARMA companies will gift &
benefit them for doing things their way.

again you make NO sense with the above statement....\\

Quoted message said:

Breast cancer care is still in its primitive stages,
where Organized Medicine is concerned. It's PHARMA drugs,
monopoly & racketeering, ... govt-encouraged & enforced,
medical malpractice & neglect.

no...hardly...breast cancer treatment WAS primitive in
1962 when my mother

was

Quoted message said:

diagnosed..at 47....they did the best they could...but
with chemo she

would not

Quoted message said:

have died...at 53

Quoted message said:

Surgery might can help. Radiation might can help.
Chemotherapy might can help. However, the doctors need to
offer a more technical, practical, logical, can-work plan
that includes other things, & also includes aftercare.
They need to make sense.

T Surgery might can help. Radiation might can help.
Chemotherapy might can help. However, the doctors need
to offer a more technical, practical, logical, can-work
plan th

Quoted message said:

includes other things, & also includes aftercare. They
need to make sense.

I know.."in Texas the docs are living in the dark
ages"....to believe

you..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bad docs are like used car salesmen on the worst lots in
town, trying to push/force bad merchandise at top prices.

that would be funny.....if it weren't so pathetic....

hawki.....

The docs with my mams cancer couldn't decide if it was fast
growing or slow. They made it up. Once of them even claimed
that the cancer had overgrown the stent and blocked it, and
showed me what he said was xray evidence of this. Then came
along another doctor who had looked at the stent inside my
mam and said the cancer hadn't overgrown it. In other words
docs make mistakes. I also asked how can it have overgrown
the stent when it has only been 2 weeks - surely cancer
cells can't grow that quickly? They said you're probably
right. I was right. Anth

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3902-4097684B-45@storefull-
3193.bay.webtv.net...

Quoted message said:

In order for the docs to have some credibility, they need
to come up with tests (bloodwork & such, & not just
biopsy) to indicate or show the cancer, ... to show what
kind of cancer it is, ... to show whether it's fast or
slow growing, ... to show which treatments might work on
it, ... & then to show, with testing such as bloodwork,
that their treatments are working, or have worked.

Even the biopsy results, don't show most of this. Nor is
the research being done with enough testing, to see
exactly which women & their cancers can benefit from it, &
which treatments will seriously sicken & injure, or kill.

My experience with the estrogen-blocker-type meds
(Arimidex & such) was nightmarish, & caused additional
permanent health problems such as sudden acute lymphedema
(swelling of the arm), ... another condition which the
docs don't seem to understand or know much about treating.

After chemotherapy & radiation, there are no tests to see
if these treatments worked. You're declared "cured" if you
survive them. This is stupid!

After that, one CAT scan after another is done, looking
for new fourth-inch-size or larger lumps, & that's
about it.

This is more cr*p-care than cancer care, & it's very
expensive.

While surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy may be of
value in treating breast cancer, ... we need some good
testing & diagnosis that can show it.

The docs' ordering CAT scans over & over, & counting the
number of women on each treatment who die, ... without
the docs' ordering good bloodwork & testing, discussing
supplements & nutrition in detail, discussing alternative/add-on-
type therapies & trying some, ... seems not only medical
malpractice & neglect, but it feels like major betrayal
& murder.

Breast cancer detection, treatment & care, seem to still
be quite primitive, inadequate, brutal, ... & extremely
expensive.

---------

Breast cancer is a deadly & dastardly disease, which I
don't think can be controlled much or cured solely with
alternative-type therapies, ... but much the same can be
said, of only using the organized medicine approach too.

Doctors need to work with us, in using both approaches to
breast cancer treatment & care.

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <20724-4096D975-255@storefull-
3198.bay.webtv.net>, [email hidden] wrote:

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

The docs want to do biopsies before doing surgery, even
when they're sure it's cancer.

Would you rather that docs do radical surgery WITHOUT a
tissue diagnosis? How responsible would that be? Not very.
Given that around 80% of biopsies in general turn out not
to be cancer, we'd be doing a lot of "curative" operations
for benign disease, wouldn't we? Even highly suspicious
lesions are not always cancer.

Quoted message said:

Then they'll schedule the surgery, for days, weeks or
months later.

In the U.S., it's usually only around 1-4 weeks, sometimes
days, and delays of a few weeks from diagnosis to surgery
have never been shown to affect outcome. I understand it's
hard on the patient from a psychological standpoint to
wait. I really do. But from a cancer treatment standpoint,
it has no detectable effect. I can't resist pointing out
at this juncture that, if you don't like how long it takes
in the U.S., try medical systems in countries with single
payer plans, where all too often it does take months for a
woman to get her surgery.

Quoted message said:

Poking holes in the cancerous lumps, & allowing
this fluid

What fluid? Most breast cancers are solid.

There's visual evidence of cancers growing along the needle
tracks with a biopsy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to enter & circulate in the bloodstream & body for a
while, doesn't seem like a good idea.

Do you have some evidence to show that needle or core
needle biopsies have an adverse effect on breast cancer
survival? "Doesn't seem like a good idea" doesn't cut it.
There is no evidence that doing biopsies first and then
surgery increases either local failure or distant failure
rates or decreases survival.

I think that your wording is misleading, does this mean that
it does or doesn't?
i.e have there been studies done to show that this?

Quoted message said:

And there is a definite benefit from doing a needle biopsy
first. If you get the diagnosis that way, the cancer can
be dealt with in one definitive surgery instead of two (a
surgical excisional biopsy for diagnosis followed by
definitive surgery). The lymphatics are not disrupted from
a surgical excision, so that sentinel lymph node mapping
is more likely to be successful and accurate.

Quoted message said:

Cutting the lumps into pieces during surgery, & allowing
this fluid to enter the bloodstream & body, doesn't seem
like a good idea. It would probably be better to remove
the lumps whole.

Surgeons DO generally try to remove lumps or mammographic
abnormalities whole, not so much because it matters in
terms of survival, but more because it's hard to tell if
your surgical margins are clean if you remove a tumor
piecemeal. In any case, again, there is no evidence that
doing biopsies first and then surgery increases either
local failure or distant failure rates or decreases
survival.

I was reading an article from a credible source that when
a surgeon cuts out a cancer, the area was swabbed and
there was substantial cancer cells in the area. Maybe the
immune system can handle these once the main tumour burdon
is removed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The six-week or longer wait before starting
chemotherapy, doesn't seem like a good idea. It would
seem best to start chemo as soon as possible.

Starting chemotherapy less than three weeks after surgery
is not a great idea. Chemotherapy impairs wound healing
and not waiting long enough increases the complication
rate. Ideally, the best time to start chemotherapy is
usually between 3-4 weeks after surgery, but there is
little evidence that waiting six weeks is worse than
waiting four.

Quoted message said:

The lack of any bloodwork (testing) to detect the
cancer, & to show whether or not the chemotherapy has
worked at all, ... seems ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all, as you would know if you knew
what you were talking about here. The reason no bloodwork
is used to detect the cancer and follow response to
treatment is because there just aren't any good, reliable
tumor markers for breast cancer! Believe me, scientists
and oncologists have been looking for such a marker for
decades! Oncologist would love it if there were a marker
for breast cancer that they could follow to monitor
response to therapy, as they can monitor PSA for prostate
cancer or CEA for colon cancer, for instance. It would
make treatment and monitoring for recurrence *so* much
easier. Unfortunately biology didn't provide us with one.
Believe me, we'd all love it if someone could find a
reliable breast cancer marker that could be measured with
a simple blood test. Many oncologists try to use a couple
of proteins as markers, but they are not reliable, nor are
they specific to breast cancer. (I sometimes suspect
because they can't stand not having a good, reliable
breast cancer marker and therefore latch on to these
proteins as markers out of desperation.)

Quoted message said:

After chemo & rads, the docs mostly sit back, wait, &
count the number of women who drop dead, ... those who
suffer to death horribly & painfully, without $$$, help
or care (thanks in part to bad docs).

Oh, please, you're getting very melodramatic here.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, since it is
obvious to me that you don't understand the issues
involved in followup care. Let's take an example. If a
woman gets, for example, a bone or liver metastasis after
curative surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation for breast
cancer, you probably already know that, at present, there
is no treatment that will cure the recurrence. (Remember,
we are talking about distant metastatic disease, not
recurrences in the breast, which can be quite effectively
treated and often cured with mastectomy.) What you
probably don't know is that there is no evidence that
beginning treatment when such a distant metastasis is
early is any better than beginning treatment when it
becomes symptomatic, both in terms of overall survival and
quality of life. So, the question becomes: Is it worth it
to get serial CT scans, etc., in order to try to "detect"
a distant recurrence early, rather than get such studies
only if the patient develops symptoms? The answer is not
so clear-cut.

Quoted message said:

Also, no consideration seems given to the quality of
life after your body has been poisoned & debilitated by
chemotherapy, estrogen-blocking-drugs, & such, ... &
when you can't find or get good basic medical care,
after cancer care.

This is, plain and simple, a load of [censored]. Huge
considerations are given to quality of life issues
these days.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Well I've heard tales of people being treated without biopsy
- maybe someone could clear this up? Anth

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040504113937.20472.00000553@mb-
m21.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Understanding breast cancer testimonials
From: "Anth" [email hidden] Date: 5/3/2004
6:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
<ZPSdnbDCn81_PQrdRVn

Quoted message said:

You don't need a biopsy to 'prove' it is cancer. Docs are
good at knowing whether something is a cancer or not.
It's the 'sceptics' that ask for biopsies. Anth

sorry Anth..but you do....

perhaps there are a few malignancies..ie
prostate..colon..etc that there

are

Quoted message said:

decent blood markers for...

and of course brain tumors where radiographic evidence can
diagnose..

but the discussion here was breast cancer....

biopsy is the standard of care for breast..

sure wouldn't let anyone proceed on ME without a biopsy...

hawki.....

reutershealth.comlinksOpen ↗
/20040415elin012.html Anth

"J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran wrote: Hope you don't mind, but I think this
is worth cross-posting to a.s.c.b J

On Mon, 3 May 2004 19:42:02 +0100, "Anth" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Well I've heard tales of people being treated without
biopsy - maybe someone could clear this up?

Clear what up?? Just because someone *inappropriately*
treats someone for breast cancer without getting a biopsy
does not mean it is correct.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

Anth

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040504113937.20472.00000553@mb-
m21.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Understanding breast cancer testimonials
From: "Anth" [email hidden] Date: 5/3/2004
6:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
<ZPSdnbDCn81_PQrdRVn

Quoted message said:

You don't need a biopsy to 'prove' it is cancer. Docs
are good at knowing whether something is a cancer or
not. It's the 'sceptics' that ask for biopsies. Anth

sorry Anth..but you do....

perhaps there are a few malignancies..ie
prostate..colon..etc that there

are

Quoted message said:

decent blood markers for...

and of course brain tumors where radiographic evidence
can diagnose..

but the discussion here was breast cancer....

biopsy is the standard of care for breast..

sure wouldn't let anyone proceed on ME without a
biopsy...

hawki.....

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well I've heard tales of people being treated without
biopsy - maybe

someone

Quoted message said:

could clear this up? Anth

Have you also heard the tales about persons having a
mastectomy or nephrectomy because the doctors was "sure"
it was cancer? The practice of medicine is infinitely
more complicated and hazardous than anyone outside it
can conceive.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040504113937.20472.00000553@mb-
m21.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Understanding breast cancer testimonials
From: "Anth" [email hidden] Date: 5/3/2004
6:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
<ZPSdnbDCn81_PQrdRVn

Quoted message said:

You don't need a biopsy to 'prove' it is cancer. Docs
are good at knowing whether something is a cancer or
not. It's the 'sceptics' that ask for biopsies. Anth

sorry Anth..but you do....

perhaps there are a few malignancies..ie
prostate..colon..etc that there

are

Quoted message said:

decent blood markers for...

and of course brain tumors where radiographic evidence
can diagnose..

but the discussion here was breast cancer....

biopsy is the standard of care for breast..

sure wouldn't let anyone proceed on ME without a
biopsy...

hawki.....

Anth said:

reutershealth.comlinOpen ↗
ks/20040415elin012.html Anth

"Generally speaking, the 'cancer cures' discussed on these
Web sites are not supported by good scientific evidence.
Other sites are outright dangerous as they advise patients
against using conventional therapies," I don't disagree with
the above.

So what's your point Anth? I thought you were "pro-altie"?

Susan's (and perhaps others) on a.s.c.b are looking for
guidance (or explanations) as to why "alties" don't work) ,
so I pointed Susan here and cross-posted back to
a.s.c.b J

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <20724-4096D975-255@storefull-
3198.bay.webtv.net>, [email hidden] wrote:

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

The docs want to do biopsies before doing surgery,
even when they're sure it's cancer.

Would you rather that docs do radical surgery WITHOUT a
tissue diagnosis? How responsible would that be? Not
very. Given that around 80% of biopsies in general turn
out not to be cancer, we'd be doing a lot of "curative"
operations for benign disease, wouldn't we? Even highly
suspicious lesions are not always cancer.

Quoted message said:

Then they'll schedule the surgery, for days, weeks or
months later.

In the U.S., it's usually only around 1-4 weeks,
sometimes days, and delays of a few weeks from diagnosis
to surgery have never been shown to affect outcome. I
understand it's hard on the patient from a psychological
standpoint to wait. I really do. But from a cancer
treatment standpoint, it has no detectable effect. I
can't resist pointing out at this juncture that, if you
don't like how long it takes in the U.S., try medical
systems in countries with single payer plans, where all
too often it does take months for a woman to get her
surgery.

Quoted message said:

Poking holes in the cancerous lumps, & allowing this
fluid

What fluid? Most breast cancers are solid.

There's visual evidence of cancers growing along the
needle tracks with a biopsy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to enter & circulate in the bloodstream & body for a
while, doesn't seem like a good idea.

Do you have some evidence to show that needle or core
needle biopsies have an adverse effect on breast cancer
survival? "Doesn't seem like a good idea" doesn't cut
it. There is no evidence that doing biopsies first and
then surgery increases either local failure or distant
failure rates or decreases survival.

I think that your wording is misleading, does this mean
that it does or doesn't?
i.e have there been studies done to show that this?

Orac is right, although a lot of the evidence is indirect,
or based upon less than ideal retrospective studies. Cancer
growing along a needle biopsy track is so rare that only a
few cases have ever been reported in the entire world
literature.

More direct evidence that biopsy does not spread breast
cancer lies within the initial studies of lumpectomy for
breast cancer wherein a rather crude excision biopsy of the
cancer was performed, there was no major effort to be sure
that margins were clear of cancer, and the local recurrence
rate was therefore very high, despite the radiotherapy that
was supposed to kill of any residual cancer. Nevertheless.
it was found that pstoent survival rates were unchanged,
even though many patients required further treatment becasue
of cancer recurrence..

Regardless of this, there are some instances where biopsy
before the definitive procedure may be harmful. Hepatoma
may be one, through seeding cancer throughout the
peritoneal cavity. Surgeons certainly prefer to either
completely remove a lesion as the biopsy or interfere as
little as possible.

A theoretical risk remains, but biopsy is an essential
preliminary to the treatment of most cancers, and if you
don't have histological proof of cancer you never know for
sure that a mass was cancerous. Thus no testimonial is
worth anything without histological proof of cancer, and if
the case looks too miraculous a reexamination of the
pathology slides may be in order, as pathologists can also
make mistakes.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And there is a definite benefit from doing a needle
biopsy first. If you get the diagnosis that way, the
cancer can be dealt with in one definitive surgery
instead of two (a surgical excisional biopsy for
diagnosis followed by definitive surgery). The
lymphatics are not disrupted from a surgical excision,
so that sentinel lymph node mapping is more likely to be
successful and accurate.

Quoted message said:

Cutting the lumps into pieces during surgery, &
allowing this fluid to enter the bloodstream & body,
doesn't seem like a good idea. It would probably be
better to remove the lumps whole.

Surgeons DO generally try to remove lumps or
mammographic abnormalities whole, not so much because it
matters in terms of survival, but more because it's hard
to tell if your surgical margins are clean if you remove
a tumor piecemeal. In any case, again, there is no
evidence that doing biopsies first and then surgery
increases either local failure or distant failure rates
or decreases survival.

I was reading an article from a credible source that when
a surgeon cuts

out

Quoted message said:

a cancer, the area was swabbed and there was substantial
cancer cells in the area. Maybe the immune system can
handle these once the main tumour burdon is removed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The six-week or longer wait before starting
chemotherapy, doesn't seem like a good idea. It would
seem best to start chemo as soon as possible.

Starting chemotherapy less than three weeks after
surgery is not a great idea. Chemotherapy impairs wound
healing and not waiting long enough increases the
complication rate. Ideally, the best time to start
chemotherapy is usually between 3-4 weeks after surgery,
but there is little evidence that waiting six weeks is
worse than waiting four.

Quoted message said:

The lack of any bloodwork (testing) to detect the
cancer, & to show whether or not the chemotherapy has
worked at all, ... seems

ridiculous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not ridiculous at all, as you would know if you
knew what you were talking about here. The reason no
bloodwork is used to detect the cancer and follow
response to treatment is because there just aren't any
good, reliable tumor markers for breast cancer! Believe
me, scientists and oncologists have been looking for
such a marker for decades! Oncologist would love it if
there were a marker for breast cancer that they could
follow to monitor response to therapy, as they can
monitor PSA for prostate cancer or CEA for colon cancer,
for instance. It would make treatment and monitoring for
recurrence *so* much easier. Unfortunately biology
didn't provide us with one. Believe me, we'd all love it
if someone could find a reliable breast cancer marker
that could be measured with a simple blood test. Many
oncologists try to use a couple of proteins as markers,
but they are not reliable, nor are they specific to
breast cancer. (I sometimes suspect because they can't
stand not having a good, reliable breast cancer marker
and therefore latch on to these proteins as markers out
of desperation.)

Quoted message said:

After chemo & rads, the docs mostly sit back, wait, &
count the number of women who drop dead, ... those who
suffer to death horribly & painfully, without $$$,
help or care (thanks in part to bad docs).

Oh, please, you're getting very melodramatic here.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, since it is
obvious to me that you don't understand the issues
involved in followup care. Let's take an example. If a
woman gets, for example, a bone or liver metastasis
after curative surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation for
breast cancer, you probably already know that, at
present, there is no treatment that will cure the
recurrence. (Remember, we are talking about distant
metastatic disease, not recurrences in the breast, which
can be quite effectively treated and often cured with
mastectomy.) What you probably don't know is that there
is no evidence that beginning treatment when such a
distant metastasis is early is any better than beginning
treatment when it becomes symptomatic, both in terms of
overall survival and quality of life. So, the question
becomes: Is it worth it to get serial CT scans, etc., in
order to try to "detect" a distant recurrence early,
rather than get such studies only if the patient
develops symptoms? The answer is not so clear-cut.

Quoted message said:

Also, no consideration seems given to the quality of
life after your body has been poisoned & debilitated
by chemotherapy, estrogen-blocking-drugs, & such, ...
& when you can't find or get good basic medical care,
after cancer care.

This is, plain and simple, a load of [censored]. Huge
considerations are given to quality of life issues
these days.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why
|do you inconvenience me with questions?"

What tests are being developed, to detect cancer in
the blood?

Also, the blood supply would seem to be unsafe, if you can't
detect cancer in the blood.

Some people who donate blood, will die a short time later (a
few months, a year), from a cancer which they didn't know
they had, & which has spread over their body.

Maybe their cancer gets passed on to others, in the
donated blood?

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well I've heard tales of people being treated without
biopsy - maybe

someone

Quoted message said:

could clear this up?

Yes, be glad to.

If anyone is treating a person with cancer and has not
determined the type of tumor, then this is a sure sign, as
sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, that
they are an utter quack. Effective treatment must be
tailored to the type of tissue.

There are several types of leukemia, lung cancers, breast
cancers, etc. and all tissue types are not treated the same.
Take a look at:

meb.uni-bonn.degesamtliste.htmlOpen ↗

and see how many different types of cancer there are.
Chemotherapy and radiation therapy have to be specific for
the type of tumor to be the most effective.

Quoted message said:

Anth

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040504113937.20472.00000553@mb-
m21.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Understanding breast cancer testimonials
From: "Anth" [email hidden] Date: 5/3/2004
6:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
<ZPSdnbDCn81_PQrdRVn

Quoted message said:

You don't need a biopsy to 'prove' it is cancer. Docs
are good at knowing whether something is a cancer or
not. It's the 'sceptics' that ask for biopsies. Anth

sorry Anth..but you do....

perhaps there are a few malignancies..ie
prostate..colon..etc that there

are

Quoted message said:

decent blood markers for...

and of course brain tumors where radiographic evidence
can diagnose..

but the discussion here was breast cancer....

biopsy is the standard of care for breast..

sure wouldn't let anyone proceed on ME without a
biopsy...

hawki.....

I'm not 'pro altie' or 'pro mainstream I just want therapies
which work, without any [censored] and deceptions from either
side. Point being that there's alti treatments that work and
are ignored that could offer treatments to cancer patients
who have exhausted mainstream treatments, and have no choice
but to go home and die. There's also quack remedies that
have not demonstrated any activity although people buy
(Coral calcium springs to mind) There's people who are
blindly anti alt whereas they actually dug into the papers
and did a bit of research you would find that it isn't clear
cut. For instance did you know that Coley's toxins were
significantly positive in a single blind test (or double
depending on your viewpoint)? I have great faith in Dr
Gonzalez/Dr Kelley protocol who both in your eyes are
'quacks.' Did you know that freeze dried porcine proteolytic
enzymes - part of the Gonzalez/Dr Kelley protocol have
recently demonstrated anti-cancer action in mice models and
the media is a buzz with it? Medical doctors have reviewed
Kelley's cases and they conclude that there's a significant
amount of people alive when they should be dead. I have the
Gonzalez pilot study here, as well as Coley's single/double
blind as well as an uncontrolled study of Coley's. It's a
great thing seeing a woman who is obviously in the late
stages of her disease, be out of bed and smiling for many
months on Coley's when she should be dead or still lying in
bed, I cried when I saw that.. Give it 2 years and we will
find out if the cause of cancer is indeed a lack of
trypsin/proteolytic enzyme activity in the body Anth

"J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anth said:

reutershealth.comlinksOpen ↗
/20040415elin012.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anth

"Generally speaking, the 'cancer cures' discussed on these
Web sites are

not

Quoted message said:

supported by good scientific evidence. Other sites are
outright dangerous

as they

Quoted message said:

advise patients against using conventional therapies," I
don't disagree with the above.

So what's your point Anth? I thought you were "pro-altie"?

Susan's (and perhaps others) on a.s.c.b are looking for
guidance (or

explanations)

Quoted message said:

as to why "alties" don't work) , so I pointed Susan here
and cross-posted

back to

Quoted message said:

a.s.c.b