I saw my oncologist on 11 Jan 2012 and request for oral chemo before I started my radiotherapy on 25 Jan 2012.
My oncologist had wanted to prescribe Vinorelbine (Navelbine) together with Herceptin by intravenous drip.
I rejected Herceptin because the last time I had Herceptin in 2008, I had a mild heart attack from the very first dose. I also requested for oral chemo instead of iv drip as my veins had become very fine and I would have to have a port or central line inserted.
My doctor then recommended Tykerb, which can be taken orally, in place of Herceptin. She would start me on oral chemo after I have completed my radiotherapy as she did not want me to have complications.
I started Tykerb on 16 Jan 2012, 1250mg (5 tablets) of Tykerb a day, either 1 hour before food or 2 hours after.
A few days after I started on Tykerb, I noticed that the skin over one of the biggest lump seemed slightly slack. It was very taut before.
Initially, Tykerb made me nauseous. I threw up several times, like every 5 doses, I threw up one or so. I also had diarrhea and made frequent trips to the toilet.
Showing posts with label chemo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chemo. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Chemo drug blunder at KKH
Recently, KKH made a blunder out of administering chemo drugs by continuous infusion to two cancer patients.
The patients received the recommended doses of chemo in a matter of hours instead of over 3 days, for one, and 5 days for the other.
KKH claimed that the blunder came about because the two pumps for longer and shorter infusion times were similar in appearance.
According to the media, KKH seemingly responded accordingly and had the situation under control. However, according to blog postings made by the son of one of the patients, this was not the case. The attitude and response of this patient's onco were even more appalling.
From my experience at NCC and the blog posts of how KKH handled the situation, I got the idea that KKH falls short of expectations. I am really surprised by their slow reaction, and I wonder why it was the pharmacists who came to them first.
While I was undergoing chemo, there were several times when I mentioned to the attending nurse that I was itching, immediately the drip was stopped and the doctor on duty was paged. While waiting for the doctor to turn up, the nurses would be checking on me and even asked to see the itching spots.
Once, the chemo drug leaked and burnt the skin on my arm causing blisters. On advice from my onco, I went to the ATU to show the nurses my blisters and burnt marks. The doctor on duty was called, and the nurse took measurements and photos of my wounds as well. I had asked why they had to do that and was told that it had to be on record.
As I was always asking questions, the moment I cast any doubt about the prescription, dosage or drug, the attending nurse would call my onco for confirmation. They would not proceed without my onco's okay.
When handling such toxic drugs as chemo, the persons administering should exercise extra caution as the toxic drugs would be injected into a patient's body, and at risk here is the patient's health and life.
The patients received the recommended doses of chemo in a matter of hours instead of over 3 days, for one, and 5 days for the other.
KKH claimed that the blunder came about because the two pumps for longer and shorter infusion times were similar in appearance.
According to the media, KKH seemingly responded accordingly and had the situation under control. However, according to blog postings made by the son of one of the patients, this was not the case. The attitude and response of this patient's onco were even more appalling.
From my experience at NCC and the blog posts of how KKH handled the situation, I got the idea that KKH falls short of expectations. I am really surprised by their slow reaction, and I wonder why it was the pharmacists who came to them first.
While I was undergoing chemo, there were several times when I mentioned to the attending nurse that I was itching, immediately the drip was stopped and the doctor on duty was paged. While waiting for the doctor to turn up, the nurses would be checking on me and even asked to see the itching spots.
Once, the chemo drug leaked and burnt the skin on my arm causing blisters. On advice from my onco, I went to the ATU to show the nurses my blisters and burnt marks. The doctor on duty was called, and the nurse took measurements and photos of my wounds as well. I had asked why they had to do that and was told that it had to be on record.
As I was always asking questions, the moment I cast any doubt about the prescription, dosage or drug, the attending nurse would call my onco for confirmation. They would not proceed without my onco's okay.
When handling such toxic drugs as chemo, the persons administering should exercise extra caution as the toxic drugs would be injected into a patient's body, and at risk here is the patient's health and life.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Postmortem - HH, Fleur
I was at HH's funeral on Sunday and learnt from P, another survivor, that HH had had chemo on Monday, 12 Oct. I did not know the name of the drug, and P thought is was Avastin, but by 14 Oct, Wed morning, she was gone.
When they found that the cancer had spread to her brain, the doctors had deliberated on their next course of action, i.e. where they should start treating her first.
Earlier on, before this last dose of chemo, I had learnt that there were already physical symptoms that her liver was running into problems - the colour of her urine, colour of her eyes and her bloated stomach. In her condition, I wonder why her onco went ahead with the chemo for her. Essentially, didn't that mean that the chemo killed her? Would her death be classified as 'death from cancer' or 'death from chemo'? Would the doctors or hospital even admit?
True, cancer kills too, but chemo kills faster.
HH had always been a model patient. She had faith in her doctors and she trusted them with her life. I recalled some months back when several of us were talking about the side effects of certain drugs, and I mentioned that if it could be proven that the side effects were caused by certain drugs, it would be sueable. HH was the first to speak out in defense of the doctors. I had meant the pharmaceutical company and not the doctors, but nobody was interested in knowing more and I let the matter rest.
Fleur, a breast cancer patient, who had been fighting a long battle, had also been treated with different drugs. From her blog, the last chemo drug that she was on, Ixempra, caused her much suffering. Not long after, she died from total liver failure. Before that, she was also having problems with her liver - bloated tummy and jaundice.
She mentioned that she was told (she did not mention where she got this info from) that if the liver could regenerate itself, she would be alright. I am no expert in this area, but I know enough to know that a liver damaged by chemo, if there is any chance of recovery, would take a long time, and with medication, but chemo has to be stopped. So, I don't understand how it is possible for the liver to 'regenerate itself', while she was still undergoing chemo. Likewise, with HH, was it cancer or chemo that killed her? Which category did she come under?
Chemo caused damage to the liver and kidneys, which is why before every dose, we had to have the liver function and renal function tests done. Chemo also wipes out the immune system leaving the body too weak to fight on its own.
How can doctors ignore all these signs and still go ahead with chemo? What did they hope to achieve? A miracle? When then would they consider that a patient has had enough? At the exhaustion of their funds or lives? Did they really have the patients' welfare at heart? Would they do this to themselves or even to their loved ones?
Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath that doctors had to take, or are they even continuing with the act of oath taking? And if they are, does not the oath taking mean something?
HH would not have liked me to write such a post, as she believed that the doctors are doing their best, even to the end.
For HH and Fleur, at least, they suffer no more.
When they found that the cancer had spread to her brain, the doctors had deliberated on their next course of action, i.e. where they should start treating her first.
Earlier on, before this last dose of chemo, I had learnt that there were already physical symptoms that her liver was running into problems - the colour of her urine, colour of her eyes and her bloated stomach. In her condition, I wonder why her onco went ahead with the chemo for her. Essentially, didn't that mean that the chemo killed her? Would her death be classified as 'death from cancer' or 'death from chemo'? Would the doctors or hospital even admit?
True, cancer kills too, but chemo kills faster.
HH had always been a model patient. She had faith in her doctors and she trusted them with her life. I recalled some months back when several of us were talking about the side effects of certain drugs, and I mentioned that if it could be proven that the side effects were caused by certain drugs, it would be sueable. HH was the first to speak out in defense of the doctors. I had meant the pharmaceutical company and not the doctors, but nobody was interested in knowing more and I let the matter rest.
Fleur, a breast cancer patient, who had been fighting a long battle, had also been treated with different drugs. From her blog, the last chemo drug that she was on, Ixempra, caused her much suffering. Not long after, she died from total liver failure. Before that, she was also having problems with her liver - bloated tummy and jaundice.
She mentioned that she was told (she did not mention where she got this info from) that if the liver could regenerate itself, she would be alright. I am no expert in this area, but I know enough to know that a liver damaged by chemo, if there is any chance of recovery, would take a long time, and with medication, but chemo has to be stopped. So, I don't understand how it is possible for the liver to 'regenerate itself', while she was still undergoing chemo. Likewise, with HH, was it cancer or chemo that killed her? Which category did she come under?
Chemo caused damage to the liver and kidneys, which is why before every dose, we had to have the liver function and renal function tests done. Chemo also wipes out the immune system leaving the body too weak to fight on its own.
How can doctors ignore all these signs and still go ahead with chemo? What did they hope to achieve? A miracle? When then would they consider that a patient has had enough? At the exhaustion of their funds or lives? Did they really have the patients' welfare at heart? Would they do this to themselves or even to their loved ones?
Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath that doctors had to take, or are they even continuing with the act of oath taking? And if they are, does not the oath taking mean something?
HH would not have liked me to write such a post, as she believed that the doctors are doing their best, even to the end.
For HH and Fleur, at least, they suffer no more.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Does chemo for breast cancer cause more harm than good?
New studies suggest that many women with breast cancer can opt for gentler versions of chemotherapy, or skip it altogether, without harming their chances of overcoming the illness.
One study found that a gene test called Oncotype DX can determine whether or not a patient will benefit from chemotherapy. The test measures the activity of 21 genes to predict women’s risk of recurrence.
Currently, chemotherapy is recommended for women with breast cancer that has spread to lymph nodes, which amounts to about 45,000 women each year in the United States. However, the chemo does not help most of those treated.
The study found that as many as 18,000 women each year could safely skip chemo, and the new test is expected to immediately spur doctors to back off on chemotherapy and use it more selectively.
A second study of more than 1,000 women tested two chemotherapy drugs -- Adriamycin, a chemo mainstay that raises your risk of heart problems and leukemia, and Taxotere, which is not linked to heart problems.
After seven years, 87 percent of women given Taxotere survived compared with only 82 percent of those given Adriamycin. Further, those given Taxotere were less likely to have had a recurrence. The study suggests that Taxotere, the less harsh drug of the two, may be a better choice for breast cancer patients.
Dr Mercola's comments :
More than 12 million people were diagnosed with cancer worldwide in 2007, and close to 8 million died of the disease. Yet, even with this magnitude of people affected, the conventional health paradigm is clueless about the origins, and proper treatments, for this disease.
Cancer treatment is one of the most controversial health topics there is, but what cannot be debated are the huge amounts of money at stake. Prices for new cancer therapies can cost you up to $10,000 a month, so it’s no wonder that insurance companies are happily paying for the new Oncotype DX gene test, which at $3,400 could save them big bucks on chemotherapy.
Are these cancer drugs worth it? Hardly. These expensive medications often give patients just a few more months of life -- and sometimes they even kill people prematurely or CAUSE CANCER themselves.
What the drug companies do not want you to know is that you have within your body the most powerful weapon against cancer and all disease, and it is yours to use freely: YOUR MIND.
The Mind-Cancer Connection
You’ve heard of the mind-body connection. Well, I’d like to introduce you to a slightly different mode of thinking. Your mind is in direct control of your health, including your risk of and recovery from cancer.
Dr. Hamer, the former head internist in the oncology clinic at the University of Munich, Germany, is at the forefront of an emerging field he calls German New Medicine (GNM).
Conflict Might be the Cause of Breast Cancer
Dr. Hamer’s work speculates that breast cancer is due to an unresolved conflict, as he explains on his Web site:
After nearly three decades of scientific work, Dr. Hamer has proven that every disease is caused by a very disturbing emotional trauma. The emotional shock causes a direct physical ailment, such as cancer, which can only be resolved when your emotional conflict has healed.
However, many people, upon hearing they have cancer, cannot resolve their emotional wounds because they are struck with fear and perhaps given a diagnosis of “only three months to live.”
This kind of emotional upset is enough to send a person on a downward spiral. On top of that, conventional medicine adds in chemotherapy, radiation and drugs, which further upset your healing.
Now, listen closely.
Dr. Hamer believes that a person cannot die of cancer in and of itself.
If someone dies during the active phase of disease, it’s because of energy loss, weight loss, sleep deprivation, and emotional and mental exhaustion. The stress of receiving a cancer diagnosis, or being given a negative prognosis, is often enough to deprive a person of their life-force, and conventional cancer treatments only accelerate the downward spiral.
If a patient has not undergone any conventional treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, GNM has a success rate of 95 percent to 98 percent.
Not surprisingly, while trying to publicize his research, Dr. Hamer was stripped of his medical license for refusing to renounce his findings. Remember, there are major forces at work who do not want you to believe that YOU have control over your health.
They want you to believe that you must take their medications to be well, when in reality the opposite is true.
For more on this fascinating field, you can also listen to the interview I did with Bruce Lipton, PhD. about The New Biology, which also speaks volumes about your own power to control your future health destiny.
Of course, while I now believe that your emotional health is the most important factor in preventing cancer, you can also help to reduce your risk by following these 12 changes that will cut your cancer risk in half.
Source : Mercola.com
One study found that a gene test called Oncotype DX can determine whether or not a patient will benefit from chemotherapy. The test measures the activity of 21 genes to predict women’s risk of recurrence.
Currently, chemotherapy is recommended for women with breast cancer that has spread to lymph nodes, which amounts to about 45,000 women each year in the United States. However, the chemo does not help most of those treated.
The study found that as many as 18,000 women each year could safely skip chemo, and the new test is expected to immediately spur doctors to back off on chemotherapy and use it more selectively.
A second study of more than 1,000 women tested two chemotherapy drugs -- Adriamycin, a chemo mainstay that raises your risk of heart problems and leukemia, and Taxotere, which is not linked to heart problems.
After seven years, 87 percent of women given Taxotere survived compared with only 82 percent of those given Adriamycin. Further, those given Taxotere were less likely to have had a recurrence. The study suggests that Taxotere, the less harsh drug of the two, may be a better choice for breast cancer patients.
Dr Mercola's comments :
More than 12 million people were diagnosed with cancer worldwide in 2007, and close to 8 million died of the disease. Yet, even with this magnitude of people affected, the conventional health paradigm is clueless about the origins, and proper treatments, for this disease.
Cancer treatment is one of the most controversial health topics there is, but what cannot be debated are the huge amounts of money at stake. Prices for new cancer therapies can cost you up to $10,000 a month, so it’s no wonder that insurance companies are happily paying for the new Oncotype DX gene test, which at $3,400 could save them big bucks on chemotherapy.
Are these cancer drugs worth it? Hardly. These expensive medications often give patients just a few more months of life -- and sometimes they even kill people prematurely or CAUSE CANCER themselves.
What the drug companies do not want you to know is that you have within your body the most powerful weapon against cancer and all disease, and it is yours to use freely: YOUR MIND.
The Mind-Cancer Connection
You’ve heard of the mind-body connection. Well, I’d like to introduce you to a slightly different mode of thinking. Your mind is in direct control of your health, including your risk of and recovery from cancer.
Dr. Hamer, the former head internist in the oncology clinic at the University of Munich, Germany, is at the forefront of an emerging field he calls German New Medicine (GNM).
Conflict Might be the Cause of Breast Cancer
Dr. Hamer’s work speculates that breast cancer is due to an unresolved conflict, as he explains on his Web site:
"A right handed woman will respond with the left breast if she has a mother-child conflict or a daughter-mother conflict and will respond with the right breast if she has a partner conflict. Her partners include her life’s partner as in husband, a friend, her brother, sister, her father, or even her business partner. The opposite breast will be affected in a left handed woman.
We do not develop either intra-ductal or breast gland cancer without reason. The specific nature or feeling behind the conflict will determine precisely what brain location will receive the impact of the initial conflict-shock and whether it will be the duct or the gland affected.
Breast gland cancer has to do with the woman’s nest in the sense that she has a "worry, quarrel, or argument" going on in her nest. The worry could be over a health concern of a loved one, or even being thrown out of the nest by her mother! The overall issue concerned however is really a separation from a loved one.
Milk duct cancer has quite specifically to do with the conflict of, "my child, mother, or partner has been torn from my breast!" Again it is a separation conflict and the rules of laterality also apply here."
We do not develop either intra-ductal or breast gland cancer without reason. The specific nature or feeling behind the conflict will determine precisely what brain location will receive the impact of the initial conflict-shock and whether it will be the duct or the gland affected.
Breast gland cancer has to do with the woman’s nest in the sense that she has a "worry, quarrel, or argument" going on in her nest. The worry could be over a health concern of a loved one, or even being thrown out of the nest by her mother! The overall issue concerned however is really a separation from a loved one.
Milk duct cancer has quite specifically to do with the conflict of, "my child, mother, or partner has been torn from my breast!" Again it is a separation conflict and the rules of laterality also apply here."
After nearly three decades of scientific work, Dr. Hamer has proven that every disease is caused by a very disturbing emotional trauma. The emotional shock causes a direct physical ailment, such as cancer, which can only be resolved when your emotional conflict has healed.
However, many people, upon hearing they have cancer, cannot resolve their emotional wounds because they are struck with fear and perhaps given a diagnosis of “only three months to live.”
This kind of emotional upset is enough to send a person on a downward spiral. On top of that, conventional medicine adds in chemotherapy, radiation and drugs, which further upset your healing.
Now, listen closely.
Dr. Hamer believes that a person cannot die of cancer in and of itself.
If someone dies during the active phase of disease, it’s because of energy loss, weight loss, sleep deprivation, and emotional and mental exhaustion. The stress of receiving a cancer diagnosis, or being given a negative prognosis, is often enough to deprive a person of their life-force, and conventional cancer treatments only accelerate the downward spiral.
If a patient has not undergone any conventional treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, GNM has a success rate of 95 percent to 98 percent.
Not surprisingly, while trying to publicize his research, Dr. Hamer was stripped of his medical license for refusing to renounce his findings. Remember, there are major forces at work who do not want you to believe that YOU have control over your health.
They want you to believe that you must take their medications to be well, when in reality the opposite is true.
For more on this fascinating field, you can also listen to the interview I did with Bruce Lipton, PhD. about The New Biology, which also speaks volumes about your own power to control your future health destiny.
Of course, while I now believe that your emotional health is the most important factor in preventing cancer, you can also help to reduce your risk by following these 12 changes that will cut your cancer risk in half.
Source : Mercola.com
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Chemo
This article was taken from www.curenaturalicancro.com.
75% OF THE PHYSICIANS REFUSES CHEMOTHERAPY THEMSELVES
The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:
“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).
“If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.” (Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989)
“Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: ‘… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted”. (Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)
“Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures”.(Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 90s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901)
“Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoral regression and generally a partial one” (Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996)
“After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient”. (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
“Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy .... Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’ Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”)
“According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” ( Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)
Also see: Chemo destroys brain cells
Monday, 25 May 2009
Cancer patient's dilemma
I must have written about this topic several times in my blog that I am beginning to feel like a nag. However, I keep hearing of cancer patients facing the same problem as I did that I find it very frustrating.
It is not uncommon for cancer patients undergoing conventional therapy to feel that they have had enough and want to stop treatment for various reasons. It is tough, very tough to undergo chemo, with all its side-effects, both immediate and long-term. Some felt good after a few doses. For me, it was 3 doses, and I have since found out that I was not the only one. It was like 3 was the optimum, but with each subsequent dose, we felt worse.
I have been through this stage before and I fully understand how a cancer patient at this juncture facing the same problem would feel. It is also at this time that we needed the support of loved ones, and yet the kind of moral support and advice that we received are not always what we wanted. And, usually these are the people who likely have never been through chemo, but somehow feel that they have every right to give advice and make decisions for us.
More often than not, we find our loved ones supporting the doctors instead of us. Their favourite line in echoing the doctors is, 'since you are responding so well, you should continue with the therapy'. Many also have the misconception that we should do everything together, i.e. go with chemo and at the same time, swallow the supplements and whatever alternative medicine there is. Theoretically, it sounds like a brilliant idea, but I beg to differ. For the uninitiated, no matter how much supplements and alternative medicine we pumped into us, these can never matched the degree of toxicity of the chemo.
Chemo cannot get rid of all the cancer cells. A lot depend on the body's immune system to fight back. But how can we expect the body's immune system to do that when it has been so badly battered by chemo? Isn't it possible that the cancer cells will revive faster than the weakened good cells?
Not only that, the chemo caused extensive damage to our liver, kidneys, stomach and heart. For the heart sometimes the damage is irreversible, and for the other organs, recovery is very, very slow and usually not hundred percent.
If the patient is not on any other alternative or complementary treatment, then I have nothing to say. On the other hand, if the patient is on alternative treatment, wouldn't it have been ideal if the concerned ones make an effort to talk to the person responsible for the alternative treatment in order to understand the patient's condition better?
Maybe instead of just giving moral support on the side, take the support one step further, do the ultimate thing - ask to be injected with chemo drugs as well, better still, go dose for dose with us. That would truly be understanding how we feel. Sounds really crazy, but perhaps something worth considering, afterall we have bad cells that are just waiting for the right opportunity and conditions to turn into cancerous cells. That would be a real eye-opener and would be like a preemptive measure for our supporters.
We are aware that a positive attitude helps. We want to be positive too, but how can we remain so when people around us are compelling us to do something against our gut feelings, when they don't have confidence in us and don't give us the right kind of support?
I still remember one of my friends telling me, "I support your decision - at least you are doing something about it". That was like music to my ears, it made me feel so good. Unfortunately, this kind of support is very rare.
As a cancer survivor, who has been there and done that, I can only share my experience. As an outsider, I have no right to urge a fellow cancer patient to heed my advice. In the event that the recovery did not progress as expected, there would be two scenarios here. One is that if I had interfered with the regimen recommended by the doctors, I dare say that blame and accusations would come fast and furious. The other is that if the patient had dutifully followed the advices of family members, friends and doctors who are fully pro-conventional treatment, one or two sentences would suffice to explain the condition, which could be that sometimes there are complications or the cancer was too advanced or aggressive.
Going for more chemo doses than necessary is like 1 step forward towards recovery and 2 steps backward towards organ damage, I could be understating, which could be likely, or I could be exagerating, which I don't think so as that was exactly how I felt at that time.
If chemo is the be all and end all of cancer, why then am I seeing people who keep having relapses despite going through chemo?
I wish that the health ministry would instruct its oncologists to be 'merciful' and not be too heavy-handed in dishing out chemo prescriptions. I wish too, that the board could review the prescribed regimen as and when necessary and that treatment could be interrupted or continued according to the patient's condition and progress.
How wonderful it would be if we could see the effects of chemo and its course of destruction virtually.
I may have been bias here, so I am open to comments and suggestions that tell me how wrong I am about chemo.
It is not uncommon for cancer patients undergoing conventional therapy to feel that they have had enough and want to stop treatment for various reasons. It is tough, very tough to undergo chemo, with all its side-effects, both immediate and long-term. Some felt good after a few doses. For me, it was 3 doses, and I have since found out that I was not the only one. It was like 3 was the optimum, but with each subsequent dose, we felt worse.
I have been through this stage before and I fully understand how a cancer patient at this juncture facing the same problem would feel. It is also at this time that we needed the support of loved ones, and yet the kind of moral support and advice that we received are not always what we wanted. And, usually these are the people who likely have never been through chemo, but somehow feel that they have every right to give advice and make decisions for us.
More often than not, we find our loved ones supporting the doctors instead of us. Their favourite line in echoing the doctors is, 'since you are responding so well, you should continue with the therapy'. Many also have the misconception that we should do everything together, i.e. go with chemo and at the same time, swallow the supplements and whatever alternative medicine there is. Theoretically, it sounds like a brilliant idea, but I beg to differ. For the uninitiated, no matter how much supplements and alternative medicine we pumped into us, these can never matched the degree of toxicity of the chemo.
Chemo cannot get rid of all the cancer cells. A lot depend on the body's immune system to fight back. But how can we expect the body's immune system to do that when it has been so badly battered by chemo? Isn't it possible that the cancer cells will revive faster than the weakened good cells?
Not only that, the chemo caused extensive damage to our liver, kidneys, stomach and heart. For the heart sometimes the damage is irreversible, and for the other organs, recovery is very, very slow and usually not hundred percent.
If the patient is not on any other alternative or complementary treatment, then I have nothing to say. On the other hand, if the patient is on alternative treatment, wouldn't it have been ideal if the concerned ones make an effort to talk to the person responsible for the alternative treatment in order to understand the patient's condition better?
Maybe instead of just giving moral support on the side, take the support one step further, do the ultimate thing - ask to be injected with chemo drugs as well, better still, go dose for dose with us. That would truly be understanding how we feel. Sounds really crazy, but perhaps something worth considering, afterall we have bad cells that are just waiting for the right opportunity and conditions to turn into cancerous cells. That would be a real eye-opener and would be like a preemptive measure for our supporters.
We are aware that a positive attitude helps. We want to be positive too, but how can we remain so when people around us are compelling us to do something against our gut feelings, when they don't have confidence in us and don't give us the right kind of support?
I still remember one of my friends telling me, "I support your decision - at least you are doing something about it". That was like music to my ears, it made me feel so good. Unfortunately, this kind of support is very rare.
As a cancer survivor, who has been there and done that, I can only share my experience. As an outsider, I have no right to urge a fellow cancer patient to heed my advice. In the event that the recovery did not progress as expected, there would be two scenarios here. One is that if I had interfered with the regimen recommended by the doctors, I dare say that blame and accusations would come fast and furious. The other is that if the patient had dutifully followed the advices of family members, friends and doctors who are fully pro-conventional treatment, one or two sentences would suffice to explain the condition, which could be that sometimes there are complications or the cancer was too advanced or aggressive.
Going for more chemo doses than necessary is like 1 step forward towards recovery and 2 steps backward towards organ damage, I could be understating, which could be likely, or I could be exagerating, which I don't think so as that was exactly how I felt at that time.
If chemo is the be all and end all of cancer, why then am I seeing people who keep having relapses despite going through chemo?
I wish that the health ministry would instruct its oncologists to be 'merciful' and not be too heavy-handed in dishing out chemo prescriptions. I wish too, that the board could review the prescribed regimen as and when necessary and that treatment could be interrupted or continued according to the patient's condition and progress.
How wonderful it would be if we could see the effects of chemo and its course of destruction virtually.
I may have been bias here, so I am open to comments and suggestions that tell me how wrong I am about chemo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)