The Doctor Is In: Investing in Fighting Cancer
Johns Hopkins University researchers report that U.S. cervical cancer screening rates are at 93% compared with the United Kingdom’s dismal 67%. The use of Pap smears for cervical cancer detection — and its ability to detect pre-cancerous lesions — has contributed to an extraordinary decline in the death rate of American women from cervical and uterine cancer, representing less than one percent of all cancer deaths among women.
84% of women aged 50 to 64 years in the United States obtain regular mammograms to screen for breast cancer. This exceeds the percentage of women screened in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand.
Cutting Edge Cancer Treatment
In 2007, Swedish researchers reported in the Annals of Oncology that newer, more effective cancer drugs are less available in some European countries than other parts of the world. Cutting-edge cancer therapies were found to be most accessible in France, the U.S., Austria and Switzerland. American patients were ten times more likely to receive any of the newest medications for lung and colon cancer than Europeans.
Cancer research may also contribute to the higher survival rates of U.S. patients, particularly compared to those in the United Kingdom.
In the UK, health technology assessments are made by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The same Annals of Oncology article explains how “research rationing” plays a role in the availability of cancer treatment:”
It was the explicit objective at the establishment of NICE to avoid any significant delays to bringing innovations to market in the UK. There is yet no evidence that this objective is met.”
What We Have — and Haven’t
The United States has a healthcare system of funding and delivery that is imperfect. Problems related to high cost, access, safety, quality standards and administrative waste should be evaluated.
But as the debate over whether and how to reform our current system continues, consideration of its strengths — including cancer research, screening, treatment, and innovation — should be given as much weight as condemnation of its weaknesses.
TO: Dr. Linda Halderman, et al.
RE: Fighting Cancer
How fortuitous that you should be bringing this topic before me today.
My mother-in-law has stage IV squamous carcinoma of the head, neck and mouth.
At first, when discovered, mostly attacking her salivary glands. However the surgery to remove those from both sides of her neck—one month between each such surgical procedure—discovered that it had got into the lymphatic system. We’re talking ‘kiss of death’.
Recognizing the dire situation, I began looking for out-of-the-box solutions.
We found graviola; a broad-leaf evergreen shrub of the Amazon. Apparently, back in 1997 Purdue had tested it and found that in vitro, it killed cancerous cells in tissues and left the healthy cells alone. ‘Oddly enough’, the word of this discovery—for some reason or other {nudge-nudge, wink-wink}—has not been widely disseminated.
At any rate, mom went through a series of radiation treatments. The mucositis has been horrific, but we’ve managed to get her through those using other out-of-the-box techniques.
We began giving her graviola tea while the radiation treatments were going on.
She had been down to 87 pounds. However, now she is up to 91. And her mental attitude and physical coordination is improving.
There IS swelling and heat in the vicinity of her right cheek (above the place where the cancer was first noted). We’re hopeful that this is indicative of the graviola killing the cancerous cells and the body’s normal systems dragging the dead cells away. There is not specific tumor noticeable in the area….so far.
The way I see the progression of this treatment, it’s going to take several weeks—if not months—to make a final determination on graviola’s efficacy against squamous carcinoma of the neck, mouth and head. But if this stuff REALLY WORKS it will be a revolution on a scale with any other in the history of mankind. That includes the French Revolution, as someone somewhere for some reason has buried this information.
In the mean time, we keep praying and giving her the tea, as the doctors are just talking palliative hospice to us. They’ve given up.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God made the Earth, and everything therein, for Man.]
P.S. Our task is to discover the wonders He put here and how to use them properly.
“Cancer Survival: According to the…British medical journal Lancet”:
The data in this section comes from Lancet Oncology. Here is the reference:
Verdecchia, A. et al, “Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000–02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data,” Lancet Oncology, Volume 8, Issue 9, September 2007, p. 784
This article was written soon after the Eurocare-4 data was released, which in part analyzed 5 year survival rates for various cancers. As a comparison, the Eurocare data was compared to US data. The US, however, does not keep data that is anywhere near as systematic and complete as in Europe, which has always baffled me. If we have the best health care system, you would think we would want to record our data better in order to prove it. The Eurocare data was compared to the SEER data available in the US. There are many problems associated with making this comparison, as a subsequent article in Lancet Oncology brought up:
Anderson, Wendy J. and Murtagh, Cormac, “Cancer survival statistics should be viewed with caution,” Lancet Oncology, 2007, Vol. 8, p. 1052
This article says that “caution needs to be exercised when comparing the cancer survival statistics of the UK with the rest of Europe and certainly the USA.” As an example, they brought up the following article:
Butlera, C. A., et al. “Variation in lung cancer survival rates between countries: Do differences in data reporting contribute?” Respiratory Medicine, 2006, Vol. 100, p. 1642
This article studied how differences in lung cancer survival rates were largely based on methodological problems:
“For frequently quoted figures such as those coming from SEER, which is the principal source of survival figures for the US, not all the methodology of data collection and statistical analysis is in the public domain. Where it is available, figures are often quoted without reference to the differences in data collection and processing.”
The US has limited data, and they don’t allow the public to see it. Isn’t that nice. The article also explained that “the omission of patients without histology in the SEER database is likely to lead to more favourable US survival statistics.” The article concludes that “ideally, a uniform method of reporting data is required in order to make valid comparisons in mortality rates.”
An attempt was made to apply a “uniform method of reporting data” with the CONCORD study. This study was published last month in the following article:
Coleman, M. P., Verdecchia, A. et al, “Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD)” Lancet Oncology, Volume 9, Issue 8, August 2008, p. 730
Verdecchia was the author of the study referenced in this thread that found that US survival rates were superior to those in Europe. He is also an author on this new CONCORD study. This study remedied some of the problems with the SEER data:
“The CONCORD study has nonetheless identified two methodological issues that probably do explain some of the well-known differences in survival between Europe and the USA, from which only SEER data have been available until now. First, relative survival was about 2–4% higher in SEER-9 areas than in participating NPCR areas of the USA. Consequently, cancer survival in the 42% of the US population covered by the CONCORD study was 1–3% lower than survival in the SEER areas alone (10% of the US population). Direct estimation of cancer survival for other areas of the USA would be desirable. Second, census-derived US national life tables give higher estimates of all-cause mortality than are noted in the SEER areas, especially with the gradual decline of mortality in the decade after a census.”
So, with better data, here are the 5-year survival results of the four cancers covered by the CONCORD study:
Colon cancer men:
1. Japan
2. US
3. Cuba
4. Australia
5. France
Colon cancer women:
1. Cuba
2. France
3. US
4. Austria
5. Canada
Rectum men:
1. France
2. Cuba
3. US
4. Australia
5. Canada
Rectum women:
1. Cuba
2. Japan
3. US
4. Netherlands
5. Australia
Breast cancer:
1. Cuba
2. US
3. Canada
4. Sweden
5. Japan
Prostate cancer:
1. US
2. Austria
3. Canada
4. Australia
5. Germany
So the US still does well in a better study, but not as well as in the flawed comparison. Interestingly, evil Cuba does quite well also. The CONCORD study also found that “cancer survival in black men and women was systematically and substantially lower than in white men and women in all 16 states and six metropolitan areas included.”
It looks like this article deteriorates from this point. I now realize that the data in Dr. Halderman’s thread likely came from here:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba596/
This site looks like it contains all the information that Dr. Halderman brings up. Let’s now take a look at the section: “Cancer Screening”. The data brought up by Dr. Halderman is in the ncpa site above under the heading: “Early Diagnosis.” The source for this data is given under footnote 4, which is this website:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
I invite you to read this website. To give you a clue as to the contents, here is the first sentence:
“Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries.”
This study shows that the US comes in last or near last in all aspects studied. So what is done about that? The data was looked at, which is here:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final.pdf?section=4039
You can see the data referred to by both Dr. Halderman and the ncpa site is in Figure 4a. The US does indeed come in first in the two areas noted by the ncpa site and Dr. Halderman. The problem is that the study overall shows how poor the US healthcare system is in relation to the four other countries. This conclusion is ignored, and two points of data are cherry-picked where the US comes out on top. Unbelievable.
Dave742 –
Blame it on both us and the Soviets claiming our workers, our educational system, our healthcare, our cars were “The Best in the World!!”
And anyone questioning the status quo clearly hated the wise guidance of the Worker’s Soviets or the Holy Founding Fathers that gave us “our inherent ability to be the “best, most efficient, do the best work – people on The Whole Planet!!”
Clearly we now know the Soviets excelled at some things, were very lousy in others…but it is still politically risky for politicians to deny that with 3 million manufacturing jobs lost that “Our factory workers can out-work, out-compete anyone!”, or that our educational system and health care system are not the “Best in the World!!”. Despite clear objective ranking evidence that places Americans towards the bottom in manufacturing competiveness, educational attainment, and health care per dollar spent.
Unlike the Soviets, we should end our denial before our economy collapses from better competition, and our excessive health care money wastage that undermines our ability to export to the point our standard of living drops hard.
We can reassure ourselves that we will always putter along somehow…but without substantial reform it will be like our auto industry – all US manufacturers may be going down – but we still have good cars made in fine Japanese-run facilities here and overseas.
Look at the rankings you just posted–Cuba ranks #1 in cancer survival rates in 3 out of 6 cancers listed. You believe that? You think Castro offers up scientifically derived data to international agencies/think tanks/whatever that might demonstrate his country’s poor health statistics? Who’s checking up on Cuba’s submitted data?
And then Commonwealth relies on the already debunked data from WHO on OECD countries that laughingly puts the US at 37th in infant mortality and some bottom rank for life expectancy. But, guess what? Each country’s health ministers submits their own data based upon their own definition of “infant”–some countries do not include babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth–the U.S. does. Life expectancy data is worthless if it does not factor in trauma and homicide among other lifestyle factors.
And take a look at how Commonwealth derives their rankings ( from the Executive Summary in the link above)
“The most notable way the U.S. differs from other countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage.5 Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health insurance systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their long-term “medical home.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. substantially underperforms other countries on measures of access to care and equity in health care between populations with above-average and below-average incomes.
With the inclusion of physician survey data in the analysis, it is also apparent that the U.S. is lagging in adoption of information technology and national policies that promote quality improvement.”
Got that? Commonwealth docks the US health performance because it doesn’t offer universal health care. No, no agenda there. Nothing about survival rates, patient satisfaction, timeliness of health care rendered–areas that the US does exceed.
Here’s how Commonwealth defined and measured “Quality”:
“Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: right (or effective) care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other five countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive care, a dimension of “right care.” However, its low scores on chronic care management and safe, coordinated, and patient-centered care pull its overall quality score down.”
Notice “right” care, “safe” care, “coordinated” care and “patient-centered” care are all constructs open to debate as to their definition and supporting data unlike “survival” rates where the data is cut and dried–alive or dead.
Much of the hogwash medical “research” being put out by the organizations are nothing but propaganda in support of socialized health care.
dave742:
I’m very skeptical of “better data” when it cites medical statistics coming from Cuba, hardly the epicenter of medical technology. Did these particular statistics cite only care given to senior communist party members?
Two very good sites for cancer information
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/index.php
http://www.curaderm.net
Cancer can be cured and not by destroying the host body.
cedarford:
I don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
hoads and Raygun:
You don’t trust data from the CONCORD study, but you can trust data from the very same author when he says something positive about the US? You can’t trust the parts of the Commonwealth study that say something bad about the US, but you can trust the little nuggets that say something good? Do you have even the tiniest shred of intellectual dignity? If you have made your intellectual decision that the Commonwealth study and Dr. Verdecchia papers are not to be trusted, then there is nothing left in this thread. To pick and chose what you like and don’t like from the same study or same author and say I do like this result and don’t like that one is the logic of an intellectual imbecile.
This thread uses an article that is titled “U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One.” That article cites a statistic, and gives a quote for it. The reference quoted is not a paper that you even have to look up in a library, but is simply a link you need to click on. You click on it, and the first sentence says: “Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries.” You can go through this process and still defend the intellectual honesty of the author. It’s quite amazing, an the reason I post to blogs like this is to present quandaries like this and watch what insane lengths people will go through to retain their in-group worldview. It’s very amazing, and sad at the same time.
If you don’t think Dr. Verdecchia is a competent researcher or that the Commonwealth study is valid, that’s fine. I am not surprised. But without this info there is nothing left in this thread to beleive either. So pretend like none of this ever happened.
I am sorry I used the word “imbecile” in my last post. I am sorry I called someone a name. I lost my temper. Please, blog masters, don’t ban me.
Give all the statistics you want. In the end, do you want to be treated for cancer here, or Western Europe, or Cuba? There is a reason why so many world leaders have traveled to the U.S. for medical treatment–to the Cleveland Clinic, the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Medical Center etc.
No, no fancy statistics from me. I’m just glad I don’t have the orthodonture of a Brit, the prostrate of a German, or the tax burden (fueled in part by a socialized health system) of either. Even with the problems in American health care, color me red, white, and blue.
ALL of the problems with our health care and educational system can be traced back to government rules and regulations or lawyers like John Edwards. I would love to see a Conservative lawyer work with a screenwriter to create a libel-proof TV movie on John Edwards, his appeals to poorly educated juries, and all the doctors he forced out of the medical profession. Akin to the politician who won an election by accusing his opponent of having been a…. a…. a…. thespian. Oh! the horror of it.
When I got breast cancer a few years ago, I refused chemotherapy and radiation because I had figured out that they were the reason your hair falls out and cause the nausea. THEN, and only then, they told me that there was hormone therapy available. At first, I paid $30 for 90 pills, then our ever so generous with other peoples’ money cut the price to $3. BUT the pharmeceutical company gets something like $750. for those pills. Big Pharma should be next after Sarah deals with Big Oil.
That Medicare bill will wreck our economy.
Damn the bureacrats at Medicaid!!! Dr. Linda Halderman “Breast Cancer Surgeon in rural central California until unsustainable Medicaid payment practices contributed to her practice’s closure. She now serves as a policy advisor in the California State Senate.”
Newt Gingrich is coming out with a health plan. I’d be curious as to what Dr. Halderman thinks of it.
TO: Sandra M
RE: [OT] Root Cause Theory….
…and medical expenses.
Actually, as I’ve seen it, there’s plenty of blame to go around for this mess for EVERYONE. That includes the patients as well as the lawyers and the politicians and the bureaucrats and the hospitals and the doctors and the insurance companies and the FDA and the drug companies.
But that’s a topic for a different thread.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If laughter is the best medicine, shouldn't we be regulating it?]
If I had come down with the cancer (mantle cell lymphoma) I was treated for in 1994 instead of 2004 I would not be typing this. New drugs (Rituxan expensive yes, but research is not cheap) have kept me alive. Take on big pharma, sure but take on big trial lawyers first. Big pharma has value added, trial lawyers not so much.
“American patients were ten times more likely to receive any of the newest medications for lung and colon cancer than Europeans.”
This statement is untrue. The reference for this is:
Jonsson, B. and Wilking, N., “Market uptake of new oncology drugs,” Annals of Oncology, 2007, Vol. 16, Supp. 3, p. iii31
American patients were ten times more likely to receive Tarceva for lung cancer. The uptake for the other lung and colon cancer drugs looked at (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Pemetrexed) was not as high.
So why do so many more Americans get Tarceva? First of all, the cost of Tarceva is $31,000 a year:
nytimes.com/2005/07/12/business/12cancer.html
That’s expensive, but if it works, it is worth it, right? Studies show that Tarceva “can prolong survival by about two months”:
medpagetoday.com/Pulmonary/LungCancer/tb/1353
$31k a year is a lot of money to spend for two extra months. But that two months extra is only when compared to placebo. Here is a paper that found that “Erlotinib, gefitinib, and docetaxel have similar effectiveness” (Erlotinib is Tarceva):
Popat, S et al, “Erlotinib, docetaxel, and gefitinib in sequential cohorts with relapsed non-small cell lung cancer,” Lung Cancer, Feb 2008, Vol. 59, No. 2 p.227.
The NHS rejected Tarceva because it is no better than docetaxil (chemo) and costs much more. This is why more people in Europe get docetaxil. Even when Tarceva is combined with chemo, there is no benefit:
cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/erlotinib-TRIBUTE0805
So Europeans don’t hand over their money to the pharma companies when there is no benefit in doing so. I think that is smart. I wonder why the authors of the referenced Annals of Oncology paper, (Jonsson and Wilking), do not go into these reasons for their findings, like I have. The reason can be found in the last sentence of their paper:
“Publication of this supplement was sponsored by an unrestricted educational grant from Roche Pharmaceuticals.”
Roche makes Tarceva. Interesting.
When an expensive drug does show a benefit, the NHS has no problem using it. Herceptin, for example, costs about $36,000 a year in the US. And even for those with insurance, copayments for Herceptin can still be quite high. This woman who has insurance still pays $9,600 per year out of pocket for her Herceptin:
usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-10-cancer-costs_x.htm
Herceptin was approved by the NHS in the UK for early stage breast cancer on June 9, 2006:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5058952.stm
Herceptin was approved for early stage breast cancer in the US 5 months later, on Nov. 16, 2006:
fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01511.html
So when an expensive drug actually works, you get it in the UK before you can in the US. And there is another difference. In the US it costs $36k a year if you don’t have insurance, and nearly $10k a year if you do. Know what it costs in the UK? Zero.
The Roche-funded authors of the Annals of Oncology paper did not bring up Herceptin. Surprise!
Raygun:
“I’m very skeptical of ‘better data’ when it cites medical statistics coming from Cuba.”
I’m skeptical of a country who doesn’t allow the public to see its data. The US pulls its data out of a black box and doesn’t allow anyone to see how they got their numbers. Maybe you should be skeptical about that.
hoads:
“Look at the rankings you just posted–Cuba ranks #1 in cancer survival rates in 3 out of 6 cancers listed. You believe that?”
Yes, I believe that. That is because I am not brainwashed by the pharma industry. Maybe that’s because I work for the pharma industry (I am an oncology research chemist for a pharma company). You think it’s impossible for Cuba to have good cancer survival stats because the US has all the great drugs, right? The problem is, these expensive drugs at best give you a few extra months. The main purpose of these drugs is to pay my salary, not to increase survival rates. Look at Erbitux, for example. Erbitux costs $100,000 a year:
dancewithshadows.com/hara/cost-cancer-therapy.asp
Erbitux has “not been shown to prolong life”:
http://tinyurl.com/6aqoby
$100k a year for a drug that does not prolong life! Does a drug that does not prolong life have any effect on cancer survival rates? (Hint: No). Does a drug that cost $100k a year help to pay my salary? (Hint: Yes).
Do you know what does effect survival rates? Catching cancer early. You catch cancer early by having good screening programs. Cuba has this. They screen their citizens, catch cancers early, and then treat them with either chemo or cheap drugs. This is how you get good survival rates.
The US is not very interested in aggressive screening. Let’s see why by looking at colon cancer.
The yearly cost of Avastin is $55,000. If you are treated for 2 years, the cost is $110k. Avastin increases life span by 5 months, on average. This works out to $264,000 for every life year gained. This is insanely high. To compare, screening the population for colorectal cancer using a fecal occult blood test every 5 years costs $55,600 for every life year saved. Even better results were reported in the journal “Cancer”. Optical colonoscopy screening costs $9,180 per life-year saved, while virtual colonoscopy costs $4,361 per life year saved. Cuba can do simple screening tests and save many more lives than expensive drugs ever will. This is what increases survival rates.
The problem from the US point of view is that aggressive screening is relatively inexpensive, and has no benefit for big pharma. Allowing a person to get cancer and then treating them with Avastin will lengthen their life by 5 months vs not treating them, and the benefit is hundreds of thousands of dollars profit for big pharma. That’s what the US health care system is about.
TO: dave742, et al.
RE: Corroborating Evidence
Not exactly on the issue of hiding data, but certainly along those lines in another area; doctor’s ‘advice’.
Everytime we’ve asked the oncologist for specific information on what can be expected with this cancer we’re dealing with, he becomes evasive. He seems unwilling to tell us the likely progression of the disease, symptoms to be expected if it progresses, probabilities of living to a certain point in time, etc., etc., etc.
I’ve encountered other people who have other dire medical conditions and they report the same; their doctors won’t tell them what to expect.
This correlates with your report about data in the US.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[All professions are conspiracies against the laity.]
dave742:
What I’m telling you is that Cuban health care is a common point used by apologist for the Castro regime. It is most likely impossible to get independent data out of a totalitarian regime. Cuban medical statistics are highly suspect. The fact that you accept them as factual helps detract from your argument and sucks the wind out of it.
dave742,
You can’t see the forest for the trees. Your belief that Cuba provides reliable statistics for its health care performance when most of the country lives in dire poverty and depends on the government for even the very basic essentials of life, completely erodes your credibility. I don’t care how much info you try to parade out as “fact”, you are the one “cherry-pickin’” data to bolster your arguments which are fraught with wide gaping holes.
Here’s one for you. Get government out of health care then maybe we won’t have people like you trying to define what is fair, efficient, equitable and appropriate health care for your fellow citizens. Let everybody seek health care they can afford without interference from the government and you will see the Target’s, Walmart’s, Macy’s, Nordstrom’s of health care arise where people can shop for health care services, competition brings down the cost of health care and health providers become more accountable to the public instead of trying to get a stamp of approval from an inefficient bureaucratic government.
Why don’t you spend some time delving into the health statistics of all the utopian health care systems of Europe and see for yourself–Europe is no panacea and adopting those health care systems only trades one set of problems for another. The US can do better than that if government would just butt out!
Cancer runs in my family, so I speak from experience. Five close relatives had different forms of cancer and four died despite lengthy and expensive treatments. The fifth underwent a mastectomy and excision of a skin melanoma and survived for nine years. But I do not trust traditional medicine and, should I come down with any form of cancer, I’ll be searching through the library and internet for every kind of alternative treatment. As for money, it can buy you the best care; that’s why the very rich come here. But for anyone else with no insurance or bad insurance, you are screwed. (About 18,000 uninsured Americans die each year.) Recently I was sent for a series of free tests for possible breast cancer, courtesy of the government. But if I turned out to have the disease, I wouldn’t have been able to pay for any medical treatments. I’m uninsured and poor, but not poor enough for the government to help me. So my choice is to find cheap alternatives or to die.
TO: Sharonsj
RE: I Recommend….
….you SERIOUSLY look into graviola.
I get it for $20 a pound of the ground leaves and stems. Make a tea of 1 teaspoon steeped in a cup of boiling water. Four times a day.
I began using it myself after I noticed reports that the indigenous population used it to treat diabetes. [Note: A birthday gift from my Father, God bless him.]
If I had a sugary dessert after dinner, I’d wake up with horrid night sweats. And other indicators of a less delicate nature. NOT ANY MORE.
However, on the other, i.e., cancer side, I’d had incidents of what looked like squamous carcinoma of the skin; itching red bumps that did not go away. Going to the GPs, they’d just freeze them off. No biopsy. But the images I’ve found on the web resemble what I had on my arms.
At any rate….
….taking the graviola for the possible action on diabetes, I noticed that I was breaking out, here and there, with itchy lumps similar in appearance to what the GPs had frozen off. However, THESE lumps itched much more. AND, after a week or so, they’d scab over, fall off and disappear. I suspect they were sites of squamous carcinoma that the body could have dealt with in due time. But the graviola was killing them—outright.
As this agent goes into the blood stream, I suspect that there is something about cancerous cells that draws it into them and disrupts their activities. Therefore, it could be a cancer-specific agent that would be affective against MANY forms of cancer. Indeed, the Purdue study was focusing on pancreatic cancer. That’s something of a distance from the mouth. So is the skin….as I reported.
So, please keep this in mind. Based on your report, you may well need it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Research causes cancer in rats.]
I just came across this. Let’s just say that I am in a position to know.
It’s interesting to see these reactions. Big pharma is bad, etc…Sarah Palin must take them on, etc…
A few points for y’all:
(1) There is an analysis of mortality by country of enrollment in a major international breast cancer trial (ATAC) with 9 year follow-up. Guess which country does best (by far)? That’s right, the good old USA. Most of the major international trials with enough patients and statistical power are now going back to see if this can be confirmed. I suspect that it will. Since it does not fit the narrative that “US medicine is expensive and bad” the MSM really has not run with it.
(2) $100,000 for a few more months of survival is bad, right? What if it were you? What if you were the one that had to tell someone that they couldn’t live anymore? DAve742, if it pays your salary, you should know better.
(3) Newsflash: Mananged care in oncology is letting everyone die. Are you all really for that?
TO: RealityChick
RE: Wacko Theory?
Lots of theories are incorrect. That’s why their called ‘theories’ and not principles or facts.
But the theory of the mechanism is not the most important thing here. Rather, it is whether or not someone survives Stage IV cancer of this sort. Don’t you think? But, considering our other encounters and your proclivity for name-calling and such…not to forget your outright lying [Note: Didn't you indicate the other time you were never coming back?]….
….I have my doubts about that.
The point here is simple. If the graviola does bring her out of this bout with this dread disease. It will be BECAUSE of the use of graviola. As I stated earlier and elsewhere too, the doctors have abandoned all hope.
Only time will tell.
RE: Credit Where Credit Is Due
Which ones?
The ones at Purdue who proved that graviola was an effective cancer killer? Or the ones that have sat on this discovery since 1997?
As for God…I thank Him every day and every night for helping us in this fight. After all, He was the one who drew my attention to this plant.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Mom’s weight is STILL up. The ulcerations on her tongue from the radiation therapy have gone. She went back to her house yesterday afternoon and puttered around in her garden there, bringing back a bag of peaches from her tree.
P.P.S. Avoid glucose? Interesting. The doctors are pushing taking Ensure-esque food, which is VERY HIGH in such. Maybe you should use your professional expertise to tell the oncologists and radiologists they’re promoting early death of their patients.
Then again, if you were to come up with a dietary drink as you describe, maybe you could make a fortune as well as save lives.
Cancer can be cured by injection of hydrogen proxide or vitamin C that turns into hydrogen proxide. Why is it not used, its too cheap and the medical industry can’t make a profit on it. Also an other cancer killer is Cantron. Look it up on the internet. As on patient said,”they sent me home to die of cancer. I took vitamin C injections and now I’m cancer free.
Someone Who Should Know:
“$100,000 for a few more months of survival is bad, right? What if it were you?”
Where did I say this?
I made a few points about expensive drugs (which were backed by evidence). One was that an expensive drug (Tarceva) is bad if a cheap drug works just as well. This seems like common sense to me. This is not saying that a few months is not worth a lot of money.
Another point I made was that if an expensive drug works (Herceptin), then the UK uses it, and their citizens get it for free, whereas those in the US go broke paying for it. This is not saying that a few months is not worth a lot of money. This is saying that if an expensive frug really does give you extra time, then European countries will use it.
Another point I made was related to Avastin. I pointed out the high cost of the drug, and compared it to screening, and how screening can save many more lives for the same cost. Maybe this comes closest to what you are saying. Even here I wasn’t saying that the high cost of the drug is “bad” and that it should not be used. If it is effective and if a country can afford to use it, fine. However, I only believe that a country should use the drug if it is available to everyone. I do not believe that some citizens lives should be lengthened regardless of cost when others die needlessly. This is immoral. If the UK can afford to give Avastin to all its citizens, then fine. All their citizens are paying for it. In the US, however, this is not the case. If I get cancer, I can get Avastin. There are millions in the US who cannot. This is immoral. My life is worth no more than anyone elses. When a country spends $100k to lengthen a few lives by a few months while letting 18,000 die every year because they don’t have insurance at all, that is the sign of a morally bankrupt and disgusting society.
My other point in discussing Avastin was about screening. If you took Avastin off the market and used that money to initiate agressive nationwide screnning programs, you would save many more lives and many more life-years. Many of these life-years saved would not be a few months at the end of your life when you already know you are dying. Screening can find cancers when they can be cured. Screening can find a cancer that treatment can cure, and as a result give you decades added to your life instead of a few months. The US does not do this, because health care in the US is not about saving people. It is about making money. Screening saves lives relatively cheaply and increases survival rates as a result. Expensive drugs will not have an impact on survival rates, because they are only for a few and only increase life by a small amount. Expensive drugs, however, do make big profits for big pharma. Health care in the US about money, not health. Capitalism at its best! This is why Cuba can have cancer survival rates as good as the US. You people will refuse to believe this because of your closed minds and inflexible in-group worldviews, but it is reality.
TO: dave472
RE: Indeed
That’s pretty much what I’ve come to notice over the last five years.
The CEO of the hospital a block away from where I live is reputed to have said, “My raison d’etre is to improve the bottom line.”
Sounds to me like evidence supporting this understanding of yours…and now of mine. He’s got his priorities bass-ackward.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I don't get pissed off. I leave that to God. He's so much more effective and final at doing things along those lines.]
TO: RealityChick
RE: By the Way….
….it seems to me, based on your statement in another thread that you’re involved with cancer research, that YOU have the better facilities to test whether or not graviola actually works. And prove or disprove my theory about it’s efficacy and nature of action.
Maybe you should do a little after-hours work. You just might be inline for a Nobel Prize in Medicine.
What’s it going to hurt? It only costs $22 for a pound of the ground stems and leaves.
On the other hand, you MIGHT debunk that graviola works. And wouldn’t that be beneficial as well?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[True research requires (1) an open mind and (2) a thirst for the truth.]
You think Castro offers up scientifically derived data to international agencies/think tanks/whatever that might demonstrate his country’s poor health statistics?
uh uh.
Castro had a hospital wing refurbished for his own care and a specialist flown in from Spain for his own personal treatment
When it comes to healthcare for the “average” Cuban, given a penchant for propaganda, I would easily believe in dummied up statistics.
Chuck Pelto:
“YOU have the better facilities to test whether or not graviola actually works”
I am a chemist, not a biologist. I could work on synthesizing compounds isolated from graviola, but the biologists test it to see if it works. Anyway, my company does not do natural product work. I don’t think many companies in the US do natural product work, because there are patent issues, which translate into money issues. If there is a problem collecting money, the US is not interested.
Anyway, I knew nothing about graviola, so I looked it up briefly. Graviola is Annona muricata, and belongs to the Annonaceae family of plants. It turns out that there is a lot of work going on trying to isolate the compounds in these plants which have cytotoxic, antitumor, antimalarial, antimicrobial, immunosuppressive, pesticidal, and antifeedant effects. Over 250 compounds have already been isolated from the Annonaceae family of plants so far. BTW, one reason to listen to the environmental nutjobs is that whenever a plant becomes extinct, so does the possible opportunity to find the next great pharmaceutical.
There is a group in Japan that has isolated and tested the anticancer properties of a compound isolated from graviola:
Makabe, H., “Total synthesis of cis-solamin and its inhibitory action with bovine heart mitochondrial complex I,” Tetrahedron, Vol.60, 2004, p.10651
Their work was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Communist research.
More recently another group in Japan tested a different compound from graviola:
Hiroyuki, K., “Total synthesis of cis-solamin A, a mono-tetrahydrofuran acetogenin isolated from Annona muricata,” Tetrahedron Letters, Jan. 2008, 49(5), p.782
There is also a group in Mexico working on it:
Alvarez-Gonzalez, Isela, “Anticarcinogenic and genotoxic effects produced by acetogenins isolated from Annona muricata,” Toxicology Letters, Oct. 2008, vol.180, p.S228
This work was funded by the Instituto Politécnico Nacional in Mexico. More commie research.
People are looking at it. Outside the US, anyway.
Chuck Pelto:
My first search was lame. With a better search, I found nearly 500 papers referring to the Annonaceae plant family and its relation to cancer. 87 of the references are from Purdue. They are doing the groundbreaking research, as you said, This is nearly alawys the case. Universities (commie organizations) do 95% of the research. Then when something is isolated and tested that looks really promising the pharma companies take over. They do the final 5% of the work, put out the drug, and everyone talks about how great pharma companies are.
It looks like a few companies are already looking at this as well. BTW, this plant contains plenty of toxic compounds as well. Tell your mother-in-law to be careful how much she takes. Good luck.
TO: dave472
RE: I’m a Doctor. Not a Magician. — Dr. McCoy, Star Trek Medical Officer
Actually, I was addressing RealityChick. Over on another thread she commented she’s involved in cancer research. Therefore, I’m supposing that she has the necessary lab facilities to do some testing on her own.
I suspect winning the Nobel Prize for Medicine would more than compensate for her having to find another specialty, having cured cancer world-wide.
And, if on the other hand, she proves graviola doesn’t work….
….look upon it as job security.
RE: Graviola Research
Interesting report. It correlates well with my understanding that one major pharm company has been ‘sitting’ on their patent for extracting graviola’s active agent since Purdue’s researchers discovered it. The unpopular understanding is that they’ve been trying to come up with a synthetic form that they could manufacture and sell for a life-time-savings price tag.
Why, when the plant is readily available? Well….as you were saying earlier…..THREE GUESSES. FIRST TWO DON’T COUNT.
RE: The Environmentalist ‘Nut Jobs’
The only REAL nut-jobs in that arena are those who don’t listen to facts and/or are violent in their objections.
The ones that prove their points are just ‘scientific’ people who are ‘out of favor’ with ‘conventional wisdom’.
I probably fall into that category, i.e., non-violent nut-job, if you ask RealityChick. After all….I’m just a “troglodyte from Pueblo” in her eyes. Who cares if my undergrad work is microbiology. Or that I’m a member of Mensa. [Note: All people who qualify for that group are obviously knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed, illiterate idiots who gibber in their sleep and drool on their keyboards.] Heck. Considering her alleged profession, she’s probably one herself.
The critical point is that modern medicine, as practiced and throttled by the AMA, has given up on my mother-in-law.
Me, being a retired lieutenant colonel of infantry who is airborne-ranger qualified am not so easily willing to admit defeat. [Note: I guess it has something to do with 27 years of being inculcated with what is called 'fighting spirit'.]
Thanks for the additional information. Keep it coming. And keep up the good fight.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Yeah. I'm an idiot. But I'm the sort of idiot you want on YOUR side. Not on the OTHER side.]
Chuck Pelto:
Initially, I thought you were addressing me. Sorry.
Purdue University recently published a review of the history of this plant. In the abstract for the article, it says that “an encapsulated extract has been effectively used by certain cancer patients as a botanical supplement product.”
You said your mother in law is using the ground up plant to make a tea with. Using an encapsulated extract of the plant would probably be safer and more efficacious. I ordered the article, but it takes me a few days to get when I have to order. Here is the info if you want to get it at your library:
“Paw paw and cancer: Annonaceous acetogenins from discovery to commercial products.” McLaughlin, Jerry L. Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. Journal of Natural Products (2008), 71(7), 1311-1321. Publisher: American Chemical Society-American Society of Pharmacognosy, CODEN: JNPRDF ISSN: 0163-3864. CAN 149:99361 AN 2008:818173 CAPLUS
TO: dave472
RE: Purdue Reports
Interesting.
It would seem that the extract is highly effective, whereas the tea—steeped from the ground leaves and stems—is merely effective.
Who, if anyone, provides the extract for consumer use?
The point here is that if this report is accurate, a LOT of people are going to be put out of work. Indeed, an entire branch of the AMA is going to have to be ‘re-educated’.
RE: Mommy Tea
The powder has the consistency of powdered sugar. It takes entirely too long to stuff 2 grams of it into protein capsules available from Vitamin Cottage to administer that way.
As for the use of the ‘extact’. Merrick—the fine people who gave US Vioxx—holds the patent on that and is sitting on it.
All I can do, is ALL I can DO. So we give her the tea.
Additionally, we picked up a report that giving capsules of the powder can overwhelm the body’s ability to deal with the sudden influx of dead cancerour cells. Something to do with liver complications. So we decided to use the slower approach….at least for the time being.
But seems to be working. And without too much in the way of detrimental complications.
RE: The Latest News
I’ll look into the article. But THANKS for pointing it out to us. We’ve been wondering why Purdue has sat on this for so long, instead of broadcasting their results to the world.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Maybe the professor realized that they might get a Nobel Prize for their work……
….RealityChick had better work fast, in order to catch up.
[You can achieve ANYTHING, as long as you don't demand credit for it.]
Chuck:
I wouldn’t say that Purdue is sitting on anytthing, things like this just take a while. The compounds are promising, but I would not be quite as enthusiastic as you are. There are a lot of promising things out there. If it seems to be working for your mother in law, though,that’s great.
Jerry McLaughlin, the researcher form Purdue and the author of the review article I mentioned,seems to be involved in this website:
http://www.pawpawresearch.com/index.html
I’m sure you’ve seen it, but if not, you can take a look.
I’d like to read the Merrick patent, please post the patent #.
Thanks.
BTW, although in vitro research is an excellent start, few agents which show promise with in vitro work make it to in vivo tests, and yet fewer make it to clinical trials (many of which are not funded by pharmaceutical companies, I might add). That said, I hope that the research gets done. Many anti-cancer drugs (including herbal ones) have toxic side-effects, so “more is not always better”. In any event, good luck!
TO: dave472
RE: Purdue U and Graviola Brew
Based on your report, it doesn’t look like Purdue has been just sitting around either. And I think that’s great.
As for my sense of enthusiasm…..
….that stems from experimenting with it on myself. [See my comment to SharonJ (above).]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If the experiment works, you must be using the wrong equipment. -- Patrick's Theorem]
TO: bill
RE: Patent Numbers
Good question. Wish I had it. It would provide useful evidence. I’ll have to start looking for it. May take some time as I’ve never done such a search before.
Thanks for the idea.
RE: Testing
Yes. I think I’m aware of that. As I said, my undergrad work was microbiology. We shared a building with the pharmacy students. There was quite a bit of cross-education.
RE: The Dangers of Plants
I practice homeopathic techniques on myself. I’ve found them to be highly effective, to include putting down acute cases of gout; another B’day gift from my Father.
RE: Best Wishes
Thanks again. We’ll need it and prayers, if you’re of that persuasion.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]
TO: RealityChick
RE: THAT Discussion
….is non sequitur in this thread. If you wish to continue that discussion, I’ll oblige you where you read it.
Regards,
Chuck(le) [the Non-pyschic Troglodyte]
[Want Ad: Psychic wanted. You KNOW who to contact.]
Chuck:
I got that review article:
“Dr. Forsythe found that the paw paw capsules, named Paw Paw
Cell-Reg, when given one capsule qid, stabilized a number of
patients with advanced breast, lung, prostate, lymphatic, and
colorectal cancers as well as with Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia;
furthermore, the patients showed no abnormalities in liver,
kidney, electrolyte, blood sugar, or bone marrow functions.”
Find it here:
http://www.healthy-sunshine.com/paw-paw-cell-reg.asp
Chuck:
Jerry McLaughlin, the researcher form Purdue who did all the work on paw paw and graviola, is now the Vice president of R&D at the Healthy Sunshine Products company.
Merrick—the fine people who gave US Vioxx—holds the patent on that and is sitting on it.
Merck gave us Vioxx.
Quite a few of the pharmaceuticals “given us” by Merck and other drug researchers/manufacturers over the past couple of decades have had to be withdrawn from the market after they got out into the general population and showed some characteristics* that didn’t show up in “the drug trials” (or were suppressed).
*Is “death” an acceptable side effect ?
TO: tanstaafl
RE: Corrections
Thanks for correcting my mis-identification of Merck.
RE: Preaching to the Choir
My last three encounters with prescription drugs have been less than satisfactory.
[1] Glucophage — turned me into an insomniac.
[2] Lipitor — ate my cognitive skills. I wasn’t able to write computer code for over a year. [Note: That's how I make my livilihood.] And I began speaking like Yoda; If Yoda in the Force is so strong, how come Yoda, in proper order, words cannot put?
[3] Prevacid — can you say ‘central sleep apnea’? Your brain somehow forgets to tell your lungs to breath. You go to bed at night and you either wake up gasping for breath or you wake up dead.
I’m no longer an insomniac.
I can, once more, write computer code….after almost 2 years of being fuzzy-minded. [Note: All the other people I know who are on Lipitor report they are having similar difficulties too.]
I’ve found a homeopathic materia medica that helps me with the, now thank GOD, rare bouts with central sleep apnea; cadmium sulpheratum.
And in answer to your final question….
I’m not really afraid of death. However, there’s something in me that keeps telling me to resist it. Must have some additional tasks I need to accomplish in this venue.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Life is 'boot camp'. We're all expected to go out and be heroes.]
So….
….what’s the graduation ceremony for this ‘boot camp’ business? And WHEN? What’s the attire? Can we invite guests?
TO: dave472
RE: Additional Information
Thanks for all that useful info. It is much appreciated.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. -- President James Madison ; from Notes on Virginia]
There are many plants that work to combat cancer. Checking through alternative medicine books list plenty of them. Two treatments that work wonders are Gerson’s and macrobiotics. Hydrogen peroxide can be hit or miss. In any case, yes, sugar helps feed cancers. I have tried to cut out sugar, but it’s hard because various forms of sugar are used in so many products. I also take vitamins all day long; they helped to get rid of constant body pains. Now when doctors write me a prescription, I look for a vitamin or herb instead. I refused to take a statin drug to lower my cholesterol (it was 167); instead I took red yeast rice and niacinamide. My cholesterol went down to 117. By the way, I haven’t developed any cancer as yet; I’m hoping to prevent it.
TO: Sharonsj
RE: Hydrogen Peroxide
I’ve seen the reports on that. And that it was not quite as effective as people would like. Furthermore, the treatments, as administered by the centers that offer it were (1) far away from were we live and (2) rather expensive….compared to graviola.
RE: Avoiding Cancers
Can I offer you a cup of tea?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. How pleasant it is to offer refreshment while battling cancer.
Would you care for a crumpet with that? We have some marvelous black raspberry preserves to go on it. And, according to recent reports, someone has indicated that black raspberries may be effective against cancer too.
Dear Dave How does Cuba do it? Thats some pretty Sicko stuff.
TO: RealityChick
RE: Apologies?
As I said earlier….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For additional information, please re-read this message.]
TO: dave472
RE: Interesting Links
Thanks for that information. Sorry it took so long for me to get to it, it’s the busy time of the month for me.
But having read them, I’ve the following:
[1] I’m glad to see you providing information that confirms my understanding of how these plants work against cancer.
[2] I’m glad to have confirmation that there are no known adverse side-effects.
[3] I’m impressed with the paw-paw having a more effective agent, but I’m concerned that it might be SO effective as to overwhelm Mom’s liver functions with too many dead cancer cells choking it. We’ll have to think on that. For the time being the graviola seems to be doing the trick.
[4] Dr. Laughlin has been studying this for 20 years?
Interesting…..I wonder why after all THIS time, we haven’t had much done to promote this information…NOT!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What they ARE telling you can be important. What they are NOT telling you can be vital. -- CBPelto]
TO: RealityChick
RE: Diets
The problem is there is still an issue with some soreness in the mouth. Salt aggravates it.
I’m searching the web for some alternatives. I’m thinking I can use steva as the sweetener. I bought some a year or so ago to experiment with. It has an after-taste but I think if we mix it well with other flavors we can get around that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: All
RE: Is There a Bio-Chemist In the House?
Upon further thought about glucose and cancer….
….I’m reminded that ALL human body cells rely on their source of energy in the form of GLUCOSE! They get it from the blood stream. Everything, less proteins and minerals, is converted into glucose: breads, potatoes, pasta, high-fructose corn syrup, sugar (white and brown), even fats. If it isn’t used immediately, it is converted to fat and that fat, in times of ‘lean’, is converted to glucose.
You can’t get away from it. Therefore, whether or not Ensure, or whatever, uses glucose or sugar is irrelevant.
Or am I ‘mistaken’ in this recollection of my studies in bio-chemistry vis-a-vis the human body cell….whatever form it may be?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: RealityChick
RE: The Ketogenic Diet Article
Delayed?
We don need no stenking ‘delay’.
We wan to keel the cancer. Noot delay it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: All
RE: Mom’s Status
Mom has returned from a follow-up check with the radiologist, yesterday afternoon.
[1] He’s very pleased with the results of his radiation treatment.
[2] He says she’s recovered from the radiation treatment. [Note: This is two weeks ahead of the low end of the usual recovery period of 6-8 weeks.]
[3] Mom’s weight is up to 92.5 pounds, from 90 where it was two days ago.
[4] He’s convinced that there is cancerous activity in her lower lip, due to the obvious swelling therein.
[5] He wants to do more radiation on her lower lip, but she’s not so inclined.
We have not told him of our use of graviola to attack the cancer and hen & chicks to treat the side effects of radiation treatment in the mouth.
I’m certain that mom has cancer in her lower lip and also in her cheeks, as they’ve been fluctuating in swollen appearance on a daily basis. But the swelling, as I think, is not the cancer itself….
….it’s the body attacking dead cancer cells. Dead from the affects of the graviola tea we’ve been giving her for the last four weeks. If it were the cancer itself, it would swell and continue to swell. But, as it is, it swells up and then shrinks in the course of a day. It then swells again and shrinks again. I suspect it is the graviola’s active agent killing the cancer cells and the body removing them. Then another layer of cancerous cells are exposed to the graviola and they go the same way. [Note: That's my appreciation of the situation.] I suspect this process is going to go on for a number of weeks.
Several thinks I want to pass on to you all about this.
First off, this effort to KILL this dread disease is not over yet. Anything could happen at any time. So, please, continue your prayer support; those who are so inclined.
Secondly, if you know someone who has cancer, TELL THEM ABOUT GRAVIOLA. Seriously. If it’s stopping this highly aggressive Stage IV squamous carcinoma, it’ll probably be effective against most every other form. And if they’ve been told there’s no stopping THEIR cancer, as the doctors have told us about Mom’s, what have they got to lose?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God made the Earth and everything therein for Man.]
TO: RealityChick
RE: I Guess…
[1] You still can’t understand English
[2] Even worse….
….you really are not interested in curing cancer.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: All
RE: Mom’s Next Visit….
….to the Nurse Practitioner [NP] at the oncologist’s office is tomorrow.
I’ll provide a follow-up of that by Tuesday noon. However, I will report that mom went for an extended walk outside yesterday AND this morning, as expected, the swelling in her cheeks and lower lip had gone down. Additionally, she was out of bed earlier than usual, of late, and watching {bleck!} television, which is her normal custom.
The cure progresses….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Some people like to talk about fighting cancer.
I prefer actually doing it. And WINNING!
[Deeds, Not Words. -- Credo, 22d Infantry Regiment]
TO: All
RE: As I Was Saying….
….RealityChick doesn’t care so much about fighting and killing cancer as she does about her pride.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. It might even have something to do with her livelihood. After all, if there IS a simple cure for cancer, she’ll have to find a new job.
P.S. As for everyone else, i.e., those who have family or friends dying of this disease, I ask…..
….what is more important? RealityChick’s pride? Or their lives?
TO: All
RE: Mom’s Status
She’s up to 93 pounds. The swellings in the cheeks and lip come and go. Pain-killer use is reducing. The NP wasn’t particularly impressed with her appearance. She was more interested in the level of pain being experienced.
Next month there’s an appointment with the oncologist, who’ll be back from his extended vacation. We’ll see what HE thinks.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: All
RE: Mom’s Status
She’s still doing well.
The swellings continue to come and go.
Her skin is resuming a normal hue and texture, i.e., the discoloration is fading and the skin is not as shiny as it used to be.
She’s got a sinus infection at the moment. We acquired a broad-spectrum antibiotic to address it.
She seemed to be developing a liver disorder known as dysfunction. A possible contributing factor was the percoset. She was constipated and vomiting the milk-fat rich milk shakes we were giving her.
We removed the fatty milk, substituting non-fat milk. The vomiting stopped and has not recurred. However, her stools are still occurring once ever few days. Considering her diet is all fluids, that’s not particularly distressing. However, I would wagre that the solid matter is from the discharge of dead cancer cells. [Note: Does anyone know a lab wthat would be interested in studying a sample?]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God made the Earth and everything therein for Man.]
I will right away grab your rss as I can’t find your email subscription link or newsletter service. Do you have any? Please allow me recognize in order that I could subscribe. Thanks.
Excellent weblog here! Additionally your website loads up fast! What host are you the use of? Can I am getting your associate link to your host? I desire my site loaded up as fast as yours lol