Part 4: More treatments, more medical bills. But will these cure you?

capture7

SF was diagnosed with cancer. She came to Penang to undergo the necessary treatment. Initially after chemotherpy, the tumours shrunk and the oncologist told her she was cured! But it was not true. The tumours grew back again after one month. SF was asked to go for radiation followed by more chemo.  Then she has to go for surgery. That means more medical bills, but the big question remained unanswered: Can the treatments cure her cancer? She wanted a cure. Is cure possible?

 

 

C: They asked you for go for 5 sessions of radiation and then chemotherapy. If the tumour shrinks they want to remove the tumour. In addition they want to remove your right kidney and the urinary tube.  Okay, let me know – do you have any problem urinating now? If you cannot urinate, I see the need to operate immediately. But you look well and healthy. I also agree that if you get those tumours removed, the cancer will all be gone. But can surgery cure your cancer?

Husband: Right.

C: What if I say that surgery will not cure your cancer?

Consultation without charge

C: At CA Care we have the responsibility to advise patients who come to us. We are committed to give honest evaluation of your situation. We give advice without having an ulterior motive of wanting to sell our therapy. I have made a promise that I shall do my best to read and learn — to be knowledgeable. And I shall share that knowledge with those who need it without charging any fee, no matter how long I talk to them. Most important, I don’t want to mislead patients. But as much as we want to help, please also know that I am not god. I can only do my best.

Go for medical treatments, you die. Follow our CA Care Therapy, you also die. What is your choice?

C:  Let me ask you one question, frankly and bluntly. If you go ahead and undergo the medical treatments as suggested by your doctors — i.e. radiation, chemo, surgery, etc. — for sure, you will have more medical bills to settle! And at the end of it all, there is no cure and  you die. Are you satisfied with this route?

P: No, I am not happy with that.

C: I understand because even if you do all these treatments, no one can guarantee that you will be cured. There was one lady from Medan. She had breast cancer and underwent surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, etc.. The treatment lasted 3 years but the cancer did not go away. She had to go into the ICU twice after her chemotherapy. She had to sell a piece of land to pay for her medical bills. During one visit to her oncologist she asked, Why is it, after 3 years already, you still cannot cure me? The oncologist replied, Ibu your cancer cannot be cured. This lady decided to give up chemotherapy and came to seek our help. It was too late, even her liver was “gone”! The daughter said, We felt cheated by all these. Yes, I understand. To me, I believe patients should be told well ahead of time the probable outcome of the treatment — even before embarking on any treatment. In this case, she was told the truth only at the very end of the game.

Now, do you understand what I am trying to tell you?

This brings me to another point. You come and see me. Can I cure you? My frank and blunt answer is, No, I cannot cure you. So if you take my herbs and follow my advice — after a month or two you feel healthy and well — can eat, can sleep, can move around but may have some pains here and there. Are you satisfied? Then one day you die. Are you ready to die without undergoing the medical treatments? Tell me, which path do you want to follow.

P: Yes, I am prepared to take this path.

C:  Are you sure?

P: Yes.

Husband: Now that you have explained to us clearly, we understand.

C: There is this man who came to see me. His father had lung cancer that had spread to his brain and was semi-conscious in the hospital. The doctors did a biopsy and then gave him 5 sessions of radiation (which cost RM6,000). The man told me, I want my father to live.

bring-him-home

I shook my head in despair. I told him, It is better to bring your father home quickly when he is still breathing. It would cost you a lot of money (RM 8,000 instead of RM200) if you have to bring him home in a coffin.

I also told him, There is no need to fight. You cannot win. No chance. Commonsense tells me that 5 sessions of radiation is not going to cure anything! Let us be realistic and honest about this.

Let us understand that all of us will have to die one day. But many say they don’t want to give up easily. They want to fight and fight until death. That is okay with me. Be a fierce fighter. Ibu do you also want to fight until you die? Or are you prepared to say, Okay, I want to live as long as I can without sufferings. When the time comes for me to go, I shall go I don’t want to put up a fight.

Fighting may mean sufferings. Ibu, what is your choice?

P: I want to take your herbs and shall leave everything else to God. If God says I have to go, I shall go.

C: Are you prepared for that? You will not get angry at me if you cannot find a cure?

P: No, our life is in God’s hand. When I came here for medical treatment, I did not understand all these. I really did not understand why the initial treatment did not cure me and the cancer came back. Now, I understand what is going on. Nobody talked to me like this before.

Husband: We came to consult you. Probably God had opened a way for us.

C: People often tell me that God led them to us. May be God did that, but I also need to remind everyone that to get well is also our responsibility. So again, I want you to think carefully before you make this important decision.

P: I have made up my mind. I don’t want any more chemo.

Understanding the CA Care Therapy

  1. Take care of your diet. Those who follow our dietary advice do not die because they cannot eat this or that.
  2. After talking to a patient for 5 minutes, I would know his/her attitude. Cancer is about human being. If you want to get well you have to change — change your lifestyle, your diet, your attitude. I don’t have herbs to make you change. You have to want to change yourself.
  3. Don’t worry so much. Make time for yourself and go for exercise, meditate, etc.
  4. Take the herbs. But remember, these are not magic potion. They don’t cure your cancer.

So, with all of the above — clean mind, clean diet, clean body and with God’s help, I hope you body heals itself.

Tell the tumour inside you, Let’s live together and let’s not give each other any problem. You don’t disturb me and I don’t disturb you. One day, when I die, you –the tumour– will also die along with me. But if you grow too much, I will die earlier and you also die with me. So let us live in peace. If you have this kind of attitude, you will have peace of mind. But if you fight with the tumour, you will suffer. Undergo all those treatments, you suffer. But at the end, you also die.

So, it better that you learn how to live with your cancer. There is no further need to do any more CT scan or PET scan if you don’t want to go for medical treatment. Do all these for what? Nobody can do anything anyway.

One day, if you can’t live a normal life, that means the cancer has come back. I can’t help you anymore. Go to the hospital and ask the doctor to chemo you. Accept reality — if you die, so be it. What else can we do?

So, Ibu you need to understand what can happen if you take this alternative option.

Be grateful

There is this man who had his kidney removed due to cancer. He was asked to undergo follow up chemo. He refused. He did not want to suffer. So he decided to follow our therapy. Now, he is doing fine. He is able to travel the world. He and his wife went to China. Just recently, they went to Portugal. His wife said, He followed your advice. He is happy. No problem at all. He is normal. If he went for chemo, he would surely suffer. So life is good for us. One day, when he has to die, so be it.

So Ibu, I want you to decide carefully.

P: I want to follow your therapy.

C: Are you sure of that? And you would not blame me if things don’t turn out well?

P: No, no, we will not blame you. Please help me right from today.

Comments

  1. This indeed a hard case to handle. If I have a choice, I would not want to take on this case. But I cannot betray our principle that we are here to help the “helpless and the hopeless.” I felt real sorry that SF was let down by her first oncologist. However, I need to remind everyone that not all patients who come to us benefit from our therapy. Only 30 percent would probably benefit, the rest cannot. It is all about you — your belief, your commitment and your willingness to change.
  2. In part 3 of this story, I raised the issue of money. Many people would disagree with me on this. To many of us who benefit from treating those who are dying, the argument is life is valueless. Many would say, if you are going to die why let money stop you from doing what is best! One oncologist told one patient, If you don’t have any more money to pay me, ask your husband to go and rob the bank. Indeed crude.

But look at this problem of money from the viewpoint of the one who has to pay the expensive medical bills. For these common people, raising money to pay the medical bills means selling the house the family is staying in.

I recalled Pak Jam who came to us, looking disoriented and broken. He had to spent RM2,000 per day on his wife who was undergoing chemotherapy for her leukemia in a private hospital. After 2 weeks he said all his savings were gone. He resorted to borrowing from friends and relatives. He came to seek our help because he could not afford treatment anymore. I told him to bring his wife home quickly. Don’t die in Penang. He followed my advice. His wife took the herbs and continued to life for another 3 years! She died because she went for a blood transfusion and they put in the wrong blood type into her!

  1. In this story, I appeared to be against chemo and surgery. No, I am not anti-medical treatments. But at the same time I also know through experience that these treatments can kill or do not cure cancer. This is an undeniable reality. Let me lists some of my experiences.
  • One lady had a hysterectomy in Jakarta. The surgeon told the patient, You need to go for chemo after this. The patient asked, Can chemo cure me? The surgeon replied, I was practising in Germany for more than 30 years before I came back to Jakarta. I sent ten patients for chemo, ten patients died!
  • As I was writing this story, one lady form Kuala Lumpur came. She had a big ovarian tumour. She consulted a surgeon in a private hospital who told her. Surgery is not going to cure you. But after surgery, you need to go for chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is not going to cure you either!
  • A lady from Surabaya was asked to go for chemotherapy for her gallbladder cancer. She refused. Why? She said, My 39-year-old son had lung cancer. He died after undergoing 5 or 6 cycles of chemo. That’s the reason why I don’t want to do chemo.

Ella from Melbourne had a big tumour removed. Her doctor said she must do for chemotherapy. No chemo, you have three months. With chemo, it would be two-and-a-half years. This means even with chemotherapy, Ella would not be cured. Ella refused chemotherapy and opted for our therapy. Ella remains well up to this day (since November 2008).  https://cancercaremalaysia.com/2012/01/28/cancer-of-the-endometrium-no-chemo-you-live-only-three-months-with-chemo-two-and-a-half-years-with-herbs-she-is-still-having-fun-after-more-than-three-years/

Cancer: Is doing nothing an option?

If you or someone in your family is diagnosed with cancer, you may wish to take time and reflect on the following.

1-cancer-statistics-in-malaysia

  1. In 2012, there were 37,400 new cancers and in the same year 21,700 died of cancer. That’s a lot of death due to cancer, in spite of them being treated?
  2. The most common cancers in Malaysia are: colon, lung, NPC (nose), lymphoma and prostate for men. For women — breast, colon, cervical, ovarian and lung.
  3. We do not know WHO will get WHAT cancer in our lifetime. But do we have to wait until we get cancer to know what went wrong? That would be too late!

We know that bad diet (e.g. smoking, excessive sugar intake, alcohol, etc.) and unhealthy lifestyle can lead to cancer. Instead of spending so much money to treat cancer why don’t we spend money to learn how to “prevent” or minimize the chances of getting cancer in the first place? Bah, who is interested in that!

1b-no-money-if-no-cure

  1. The cost of cancer treatments is expensive. You may need to spend all your lifetime savings, pawn your jewelleries or sell your property — land, house, etc., to pay for these treatments.

2-economic-impact-of-chemo-drugs 3-hospital-bill 4-costly-to-die 5-brancrupt-rate-in-us

  1. What if we do nothing?

12-cancer-is-doing-nothing-an-option

10-why-treat

  1. What ???? … you may die sooner if you undergo all those treatments dished out to you. Doc., you can’t be right on this?

6-cynthia-foster

  1. What ??? again ???? … chemotherapy is a waste of money?

  1. Hi doc., you must be joking, right?

9-martin

7-ken-murray-1

8-ken-murray-2

richard-smith-stay-away-from-oncologist

 

More advice ….read what Dr. Gilbert Welch wrote:

 

gilbert-welch-do-nothing-is-better gilbert-welch-fight-the-battle-to-the-end

 

 

 

 

Ten ways how doctors in India cheat patients

Someone in India sent us the link to this article. Thanks for sharing!

A renowned physician Dr B M Hegde has shown how a large number of doctors working in five-star hospitals shortchange  patients in order to keep their management happy and enrich their own pockets.

Capture

Prof. B. M. Hegde, MD, FRCP, FRCPE, FRCPG, FRCPI, FACC, FAMS. Padma Bhushan Awardee 2010.Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of the Science of Healing Outcomes, Chairman, State Health Society’s Expert Committee, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.Former Prof. Cardiology, The Middlesex Hospital Medical School, University of London, Affiliate Prof. of Human Health, Northern Colorado University, Retd. Vice Chancellor, Manipal University, “Manjunath”Pais Hills, Bejai. MANGALORE-575004. India.

He said:

  • To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Surgeons like to solve medical problems by cutting, just as physicians first seek solutions with drugs. So, if you take your medical problem to a surgeon first, the chances are that you will unnecessarily end up on the operation table. Instead, please go to an ordinary GP first.

Read more …  http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/-ways-how-doctors-in-india-loot-patients-17628.html

1)      40-60% kickbacks for lab tests.
When a doctor (whether family doctor / general physician, consultant or surgeon) prescribes tests – pathology, radiology, X-rays, MRIs etc. – the laboratory conducting those tests gives commissions. In South and Central Mumbai — 40%. In the suburbs north of Bandra — a whopping 60 per cent! He probably earns a lot more in this way than the consulting fees that you pay.

2)      30-40% for referring to consultants, specialists & surgeons.
When your friendly GP refers you to a specialist or surgeon, he gets 30-40%.

3)      30-40% of total hospital charges.
If the GP or consultant recommends hospitalization, he will receive kickback from the private nursing home as a percentage of all charges including ICU, bed, nursing care, surgery.

4)      Sink tests.
Some tests prescribed by doctors are not needed. They are there to inflate bills and commissions. The pathology lab understands what is unnecessary. These are called “sink tests”; blood, urine, stool samples collected will be thrown.

5)      Admitting the patient to “keep him under observation”.
People go to cardiologists feeling unwell and anxious. Most of them aren’t really having a heart attack, and cardiologists and family doctors are well aware of this. They admit such safe patients, put them on a saline drip with mild sedation, and send them home after 3-4 days after charging them a fat amount for ICU, bed charges, visiting doctors fees.

6)      ICU minus intensive care.
Nursing homes all over the suburbs are run by doctor couples or as one-man-shows. In such places, nurses and ward boys are 10th class drop-outs in ill-fitting uniforms and bare feet. These “nurses” sit at the reception counter, give injections and saline drips, perform ECGs, apply dressings and change bandages, and assist in the operation theatre. At night, they even sit outside the Intensive Care Units; there is no resident doctor. In case of a crisis, the doctor — who usually lives in the same building — will turn up after 20 minutes, after this nurse calls him. Such ICUs admit safe patients to fill up beds. Genuine patients who require emergency care are sent elsewhere to hospitals having a Resident Medical Officer (RMO) round-the-clock.

7)      Unnecessary caesarean surgeries and hysterectomies.

Many surgical procedures are done to keep the cash register ringing. Caesarean deliveries and hysterectomy (removal of uterus) are high on the list. While the woman with labour -pains is screaming and panicking, the obstetrician who gently suggests that caesarean is best seems like an angel sent by God! Menopausal women experience bodily changes that make them nervous and gullible. They can be frightened by words like ” cysts” and “fibroids” that are in almost every normal woman’s radiology reports. When a gynaecologist gently suggests womb removal “as a precaution”, most women and their husbands agree without a second’s thought.

8)      Cosmetic surgery advertized through newspapers.

Liposuction and plastic surgery are not minor procedures. Some are life-threateningly major. But advertisements make them appear as easy as facials and waxing. The Indian medical council has strict rules against such  misrepresentation. But nobody is interested in taking action.

9)       Indirect kickbacks from doctors to prestigious hospitals.

To be on the panel of a prestigious hospital, there is give-and-take involved. The hospital expects the doctor to refer many patients for hospital admission. If he fails to send a certain number of patients, he is quietly dumped. And so he likes to admit patients even when there is no need.

10)  “Emergency surgery” on dead body.
If a surgeon hurriedly wheels your patient from the Intensive Care Unit to the operation theatre, refuses to let you go inside and see him, and wants your signature on the consent form for “an emergency operation to save his life”, it is likely that your patient is already dead. The “emergency operation” is for inflating the bill; if you agree to it, the surgeon will come out 15 minutes later and report that your patient died on the operation table. And then, when you take  delivery of the dead body, you will pay OT charges, anaesthesiologist’s charges, blah-blah-Doctors are humans too. You can’t trust them blindly.

Related articles:

On top of consultation fee, she had to pay RM1,700 to the oncologist —  referral fee for radiation! https://cancercaremalaysia.com/2015/07/19/rm-2830-lost-for-not-wanting-to-proceed-with-radiotherapy/

What Doctors Don’t Get to Study in Medical School by Professor B.M. Hegde

https://cancercaremalaysia.com/2014/05/08/what-doctors-dont-get-to-study-in-medical-school/

 

 

 

Why do cancer drugs get such an easy ride?

BMJ 2015350 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2068 (Published 23 April 2015)Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h2068

Donald W Light, professor and Joel Lexchin, professor 

Rushed approvals result in a poor deal for both patients and cancer research

Unlike most other diseases, cancer instils a special fear and “is treated as an evil, invincible predator, not just a disease.”

The ability of drug companies to charge very high prices, even when most approved cancer drugs provide little gain for patients, drives much of the research, as desperate patients lead some governments and private insurers to pay whatever companies charge.

Officials within the US Food and Drug Administration are enthusiastic about new cancer drugs. Richard Pazdur, who oversees oncology activities for the FDA says that new cancer drugs are so effective that “We don’t have a lot of questions on [these] drugs because they’re slam dunks. It’s not if we’re going to approve them. It’s how fast we’re going to approve them.”

The methodological weaknesses in oncology trials do not support such enthusiasm.

Trials for cancer drugs were 2.8 times more likely not to be randomised, 2.6 times more likely not to use a comparator (single arm), ….

and to READ MORE ….. Article access for 1 day: Purchase this article for £23 $37 €30 * http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2068

If you don’t have the money to pay for a one day access to this article, try “googling” the subject matter, and with some luck you get a “free ride” and enjoy comments from various sources.

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150507135917.htm: Highly priced cancer drugs get rushed approvals despite poor trial methodology and little effect on the longevity of patients, cautions York University Professor Dr. Joel Lexchin in the School of Health Policy and Management.

“Patients and their doctors should demand that regulators require pharma companies to provide clear evidence of clinical effectiveness of the drugs, resulting from rigorous methodology,” suggests Lexchin. “Drug agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) don’t actually look at whether people live longer.”

In an article in the British Medical Journal, titled “Why do cancer drugs get such an easy ride?,” Lexchiin and co-author Donald Light, a professor in the School of Osteopathic Medicine, Rowan University in New Jersey, note that accelerated approval and shortened review times also make it a smooth sail for cancer drugs.

Lexchin cites earlier research reviewing solid cancer drugs within 10 years of EMA approval to point out that these drugs improved survival by just over a month.

“Similarly 71 drugs approved by the FDA from 2002 to 2014 for solid tumours have resulted in median gains in progression-free and overall survival of only 2.5 and 2.1 months, respectively,” he says adding, “Also, only 42 per cent met the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee’s criteria for meaningful results for patients.”

From: http://www.yourhealthbase.com/ihn260.pdf: How Effective Are Newer Chemotherapy Drugs?

  • An editorial in the April 23, 2015 British Medical Journal examined the recent accelerated drug approval process for cancer drugs in both the US and Europe. The subtitle was “Rushed approvals result in a poor deal for both patients and cancer research.”
  • This editorial contains some extremely disturbing statistics and information the authors obtained from reviewing the chemotherapy clinical study literature and other papers over the last 8 to 10 years.
  • Between 2007 and 2010, … almost 9000 oncology clinical drug trials were compared with trials for other diseases, the former were 2.6 times more likely not to use a comparator and 1.8 time more likely not be blinded (open to bias from the investigators) … this undermine the validity of the outcomes, it also reflect what regulators will allow. (In lay man language this means bad research. And the regulators — FDA, allows that!).
  • The European Medicine Agency … found that new oncology drugs improved survival by a mean of 1.5 months and a median of 1.2 months.
  • The 71 drugs approved by the US FDA from 2002 to 2014 for solid tumors have resulted in median gains in progression-free survival of 2.5 months and overall survival of 2.1 months. (Pay thousands of ringgit plus suffer side effects and you live 2.5 months longer? Not cured? As you told about this before you started paying though your nose?).
  • Post-marketing changes in the package insert (so-called label) were substantially greater for oncology drugs given priority approval as compared to those going through the much longer standard process, which the authors suggest reflects deficiencies in the accelerated review process. (In layman language it means, quicky, sloppy job — a rush to make quick bucks?)
  • Both the European and US regulators allow companies to test cancer drugs using a surrogate endpoint rather than survival or other more patient-centered outcomes. Tumor size is given as an example of an unreliable endpoint since it is highly variable in predicting overall survival. (In layman language the measure of trial outcome is not reliable. Just making the size of tumor smaller — or tumour shrinkage — may not mean anything. Surely it does not mean the cancer is cured! So, the measure of effectiveness is faulty).
  • In 2013, two peer-reviewed papers appeared where a total of over 100 oncologists protested against the high prices being charged for cancer drugs when 11 out of 12 approved in 2012 provided only small benefits for patients. (Do you realize that chemo drugs are getting more expensive …the prices of the newer drugs are beyond our imagination. But are they effective? Yes, make you live longer by 2 or 3 months????? But patients want a CURE)
  • The authors term the approval process an “Easy Ride” and suggest that this serves both patients and research badly.
  • It can also be argued that the majority of cancer drug development research currently leading to new drug approval is bogged down in merely getting more ineffective drugs approved in the hope that marginal improvements in survival will lead to enhanced profits. (The root of this evil is greed! They go after your cancer or after your money?)
  • … generally priced so high that the choice is between bankruptcy or declining treatment except for the wealthy.
  • The results discussed above are consistent with those presented in 2004 by Morgan et al14. Based on reports from Australia between 1992 and 1997, the contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was 2.3% whereas in the US it was 2.1%. These results suggest that over this period in these two countries chemotherapy made little contribution to cancer survival. (Yes, they tell you … chemo will give 60% chance, 99% chance, bla, bla …the Australian showed chemo is only 2 or 3% effective).
  • Furthermore, not much appears to haves changed between 1992 and 2014 from the patient’s perspective. It is important to note that we are talking about cancers that involve solid tumors. (Why change or improve? As it is – the drug companies are happy, hospitals and doctors are happy! And patients believe and trust them!)
  • BOTTOM LINE: When offered one of the new “wonder” chemotherapeutic drugs, it is important to ascertain the actual expected life extension in order to weigh this against the side effects. Trivial life extensions are sufficient to gain regulatory approval and allow patients to be told the treatment will extend their life. Unless carefully qualified, such an approach appears unethical.

 

 

Using Emotions of Fear or Hope to Sell Cancer Treatments

Our website, http://www.cacare.com has this opening sentences:

CANCER ! Don’t panic ! Haste is from the Devil ~ Arab saying.

Why do you visit this website? We believe you are seeking information to enable you or your loved ones to make certain decisions about his/her cancer. Our advice is: Read as much as possible. Gather information from different sources. Cast your net wider and read what others from different disciplines have to say about the same subject. Get out of the box and view your problem in a different light.

Often, in the face of fear, hopelessness and panic we forget to use our commonsense. Calm down. A decision made in haste or under pressure is never a good decision. Remember, you don’t get cancer just only yesterday.

When we go to the hospital, we go with full faith and trust. We believe that the doctors have our best interests in their hearts – after all,  medicine is a noble profession! Unfortunately medicine has morphed into something else today!

The treatment of disease is not a science … but a thriving industry ~ Sir James Barr, Vice President, British Medical Association.

Physicians are called to service, to put patients’ good above our own. That’s a very spiritual calling. But with … making medicine a business, we’re … losing that sense of purpose and meaning ~ Christina Puchalski, professor of medicine, George Washington University. Reader’s Digest Sept. 2001.

People go where the money is, and you’d like to believe it’s different in medicine, but it’s really no different in medicine. When you start thinking of oncology as a business, then all these decisions make sense ~ Dr. Robert Geller, oncologist. New York Times, 12 June 2007 by Alex Beresen.

On the morning of 31 May 2014, I woke up to read the following titles in the internet! It is sad. But this is the reality of the medical industry! Please read these …

1. Cancer Ads Focus On Emotion, Not Facts: Are Consumers Being Misled About Treatment Options?

  • Advertisements released by U.S. cancer centers in magazines and on TV may be delivering the wrong message.
  • The grueling battle with cancer is one that many people undergo with little knowledge already at-hand. Popular outlets such as TV and magazines may prove unhelpful in that regard … these ads focus more on emotion than on facts.
  • Consumers gain little information about treatment costs, risks, or even its benefits in concrete, quantitative terms.
  • If the ads were anything to go by, the data suggests that patients would hope for survival rather than evaluate their chances.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/cancer-ads-focus-emotion-not-facts-are-consumers-being-misled-about-treatment-options-284828 

2. Analysis Shows Advertising by Cancer Centers Frequently Evokes Hope and Fear, but Provides Little Information.

  • Advertisements frequently promoted cancer therapy with emotional appeals that evoked hope and fear, while rarely providing information about risks, benefits, costs, or insurance availability. The researchers suggest that the ads may lead patients to pursue care that is either unnecessary or unsupported by scientific evidence.
  • Pursuit of unnecessary tests or treatment may … expose patients to avoidable risks and contribute to increasing costs.

http://www.ascopost.com/ViewNews.aspx?nid=16259

3. Nine of 10 cancer center ads use emotional fluff to attract patients, with little mention of success rates, risks or cost.

Cancer centers and hospitals are competing for your business …. Many cancer charities use the same methods to raise money, which I discuss in my most popular video.

http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/cancer-center-ads-use-emotional-appeals/

4. Cancer Center Ads Use Emotion, Promise Cure.

  • In their advertisements to the general public, cancer centers in the US use emotional appeals that evoke hope and fear, and rarely provide information about risks, benefits, costs … The approach may lead to unrealistic expectations and inappropriate treatments, it warns.

Emotional appeals were a cornerstone of most ads …. Most stressed survival or potential for cure rather than comfort, quality of life, or patient-centered care.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/825701

5.  Study: Cancer ads tug at heartstrings, leave out caveats.

  • Advertisements for cancer centers are inflated with emotions, but fail to disclose the fine print….
  • A systematic content analysis of these ads found that the content is sharply directed at a would-be patient’s heartstrings:
  • 85% made emotional appeals to consumers
    b.  61% used language about hope, extension of life, or a cure
    c.  52% touted innovative, or advanced technology or treatments
    d. 30% evoked fear by mentioning death, fear, or loss.
  • Noticeably missing from most of the TV and magazine ads is information about the risks, scientific-supported benefits and cost:
  • a.  2% disclosed the risks of the cancer treatment
    b.  5% mentioned cost of treatment
  • Emotion-based advertisement is a powerful means of persuasion and potentially harmful to the consumer.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/26/study-cancer-ads-tug-at-heartstrings-leave-out-caveats/comment-page-1/

6. Cancer Center Advertisements Focus on Emotional Appeals. 

MedicalResearch: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report? 

Dr. Schenker: Cancer center advertisements are increasingly common.  I think it is important for clinicians and patients to be aware of the focus on survival and potential cure in these advertisements, as well as the use of emotional appeals.  I would encourage patients to seek more complete and balanced sources of information – and to talk with a trusted physician – when facing important decisions about their cancer care.

http://medicalresearch.com/cancer-_-oncology/cancer_center_advertisements_focus_on_emotional_appeals/5545/

The above comments came about as a result of research conducted by Vater et al and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, 27 May 2014,  What Are Cancer Centers Advertising to the Public?: A Content Analysis.

A total of 102 cancer centers placed 409 unique clinical advertisements in top media markets in 2012. They found out that the:

  • Advertisements promoted treatments (88%) more often than screening (18%) or supportive services (13%).
  • Benefits of advertised therapies were described more often than risks (27% vs. 2%) but were rarely quantified (2%).
  • Few advertisements mentioned coverage or costs (5%).
  • Emotional appeals were frequent (85%), evoking hope for survival (61%), describing cancer treatment as a fight or battle (41%), and inducing fear (30%).
  • Nearly one half of advertisements included patient testimonials, which were usually focused on survival, rarely included disclaimers (15%), and never described the results that a typical patient may expect. 

The Journal’s editorial weighed in with more comments:

  • In her classic essay, Illness as Metaphor, Susan Sontag suggested that the negative metaphor and myths surrounding cancer increase the suffering of patients.
  • Vater and colleagues ….found that … benefits of advertised therapies were emphasized more often than risks, and specific data were rarely given.
  • Appeals were largely emotional rather informational, sometimes seemed to equate treatment with cure and most often focused on survival rather than comfort or quality of life.
  • The authors suggest that the focus may contribute to unrealistic expectations about treatment benefits among patients with cancer … and may even lead to inappropriate treatments.

Almost every day I have people writing or coming to me asking for help about their cancer. This is my advice, no matter who you go to – medical doctor or alternative practitioner.

If you are asked to undergo any treatment, ask the following questions first (don’t be led by the nose):

a. Can the treatment cure your cancer?

b. If the answer is “Yes”, better think a million times before you take the recommended path! My experience shows there is no such thing as a cure!

c. If you are told you have a 60 percent chance of success, make sure that you understand what this percentage means to you. Know that only 6 out of 10 patient succeed! Success may not mean anything! What is it, cure? Know that that this statistics may not apply to you at all. Six succeeded but how sure that you belong to the 6 and not the 4 who failed?

d. Patients tell me that often they get these answers when they ask about their cancer of cure: Ask God!  or  We shall try and see. Such answers imply that you are in the game of luck, not science anymore.

e. Another favourite answer is, No cure, but can prolong life. Ask, prolong life for how long? Some drugs only prolong life by a few days, a few weeks or a few months, rarely years!

f. Even if the treatment prolongs life, it comes with a great cost in terms of side effects and money. Decide, if the extra time of being alive (but ended up being a vegetable) is worth it?

g. Ask about the side effects of the treatment. Very often the “bad effects” are toned down! Some don’t want to even tell you about them! It is wise to visit the oncology ward of the hospital and see for yourself  (and ask) those who have undergone the treatments. Check about treatment by reading what others say in the internet.

h. Ask about the total cost of the treatment. It is foolish to proceed with the treatment half way and then found later that you don’t have to enough money to complete the journey!

CANCER’S COLLATERAL DAMAGE: PART 4–WHY THE RICH AND FAMOUS DIE FASTER WHEN THEY HAVE CANCER

by Yeong Sek Yee & Khadijah Shaari

Yes, the rich and famous (and insured) do die faster when they have cancer…more from the collateral damage due to the conventional (and scientifically proven?) cancer treatments than from the original cancer itself. A classic example is the sad story of Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis who was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in January 1994 and died in May 1994, just barely 5 months after diagnosis.

In the best-seller, HOW WE DO HARM, Dr Otis Brawley, an oncologist and Vice-President of the American Cancer Society, bluntly stated that….”If you are rich and insured, you face another menace. Ironically wealth can increase your risk of getting lousy care. When wealthy patients demand irrational care, it’s not hard to find a doctor willing to provide it. If you have more money, doctors tell you more of what they sell, and they just might kill you. “

Below is a list of 15 (there are many, many more) rich and famous personalities who have succumbed to cancer and the average period from the date of diagnosis to death is less than 2 years. How is it that the scientifically proven/tested conventional cancer treatments did not help them? Did their cancer treatments come along with excessive collateral damage to their body system or were their cancers just too aggressive?

Likewise, you may remember that Malaysia’s most famous and leading oncologist, the late Dr Albert Lim, succumbed to prostate cancer on March 8th 2013 after less than a year of scientifically tested cancer treatments. He had metastasis to his pelvic area, liver and lungs as well. Was there excessive collateral damage or was the prostate cancer too aggressive??

HERE ARE THE 15 RICH AND FAMOUS WHO TRIED BUT DID NOT SURVIVE:

1) JO ANN DAVIS, 57

Jo Ann was a US Republican Congresswoman for Virginia and was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005. She underwent chemotherapy treatments and a mastectomy. In early 2007, she suffered a recurrence. When the cancer returned, she underwent chemotherapy again. Jo Ann died on Oct 6, 2007.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 2 years

2) LINDA McCARTNEY, 56

Linda McCartney, wife of Paul McCartney died in April 1998, less than three years after it was announced that she was treated for breast cancer. Although her chemotherapy treatments had seemed to have her cancer in check, she took a turn for the worse in March 1998 when the disease spread to her liver.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: Less than 3 years

3) HEATHER CLARKE, 39

Heather was the wife of Darren Clarke, a PGA Golfer. She died in August 2006 after a two year battle with breast cancer that had spread to her bones and liver. She was treated at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 2 years

4) MIRIAM ENGELBERG, 48

Miriam, a well-known US cartoonist was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2001 at the age of 43. Three years later, the cancer had spread to her brain and she died at age 48.

Summary Points—a) From diagnosis to recurrence: 3 years  b) From diagnosis to death: 5 years 

5) ELIZABETH EDWARDS, 57

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John Edwards (a US presidential candidate) was initially diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004 and was treated with a combination of chemotherapy, surgery and radiation. In March 2007, a recurrence was discovered after she cracked a rib and a subsequent X-ray showed spots on another rib, on the other side of the chest.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to bone metastasis: Less than 3 years.                            

6) KING HUSSEIN OF JORDAN, 63

In July 1998, King Hussein was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) and immediately underwent chemotherapy at MAYO Clinic in US. He was treated there for six months and returned to Jordan in January 1999.

In late January 1999, King Hussein returned to MAYO after his doctors found evidence that the lymphatic cancer had recurred. King Hussein underwent two bone marrow transplants with cells from his younger brother and sister (in December 1998 and January 1999).

In February 1999, King Hussein returned to Jordan for palliative care and subsequently passed away on February 7, 1999.

Summary Points—a) From diagnosis to recurrence: 6 months  b) From diagnosis to death: 7 months. 

7) FREDDY FENDER, 69

Freddy Fender, singer of hits like “Before the Next Teardrop Falls” and “Wasted Days and Wasted Nights” was diagnosed with lung cancer (two lemon-sized tumors) in January 2006. He underwent chemotherapy but later decided to stop treatment because of severe effects on his body. Following Fender’s initial round of chemo, he had a PET scan which showed that the tumors had shrunk, but also revealed that he had nine other tumors. Freddy Fender died on October 14 2006.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 9 months. 

8) SUZANNE PLESHETTE

On August 11, 2006, Suzanne Pleshette was treated for lung cancer at Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre and the hospital claimed that the cancer was the size of “a grain of sand” when it was found during a routine x-ray, that the cancer was “caught very much in time,” that she was receiving chemotherapy as an outpatient. She was later hospitalized for a pulmonary infection and developed pneumonia, causing her to be hospitalized for an extended period ……as part of her treatment, a part of her lungs was removed… Pleshette died in January 19, 2009of respiratory failure.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 1 year 5 months

9) DAN FOGELBERG, 56

Dan Fogelberg, a singer and songwriter, discovered he had advanced prostate cancer in 2004. He underwent hormonal therapy and achieved a partial remission but failed to completely eliminate the disease. Dan subsequently died on December 15, 2007.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 3 years

10) LUCIANO PAVAROTTI, 71

Pavarotti, opera singer was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in July 2006 and required emergency surgery to remove the tumor. On September 5, 2007, Italy’s AGI news agency reported that Luciano Pavarotti’s health had deteriorated and the singer was in a “very serious condition”. He was reported to be in and out of consciousness multiple times, suffering kidney failure. He finally passed away on September 6, 2007.

Summary Points—From diagnosis to death: 11 months 

11) DANA REEVE, 44

Dana Reeve, wife of Christopher Reeve (Superman), was diagnosed with lung cancer in August 2005 and passed away on March 6, 2006.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 7 months only 

12) TONY SNOW, 51

Tony Snow, a White House spokesman, was treated for colon cancer in 2005 at which time his colon was removed and subsequently underwent six months of chemotherapy. In March 2007, doctors determined that the cancer had spread to his liver. He died in July 2008.

Summary Points: a)   From surgery/chemotherapy to liver metastasis: 1 ½ years  b)   From surgery /chemotherapy to death: 2 ½ years

13) MICHAEL LANDON, 54

Michael Landon was the star in the hit series “Little House on the Prairie” and “Bonanza”. On April 5, 1991 he was diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer that had spread to his liver and lymph nodes. He underwent three sessions of chemotherapy but subsequently died on July 1, 1991.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 2 months 

14) ARCHBISHOP CHRISTO DOULOS, 69

The Archbishop fell ill in June 9, 2006 and medical tests showed that he suffered from advanced cancer in the LARGE INTESTINE (COLON) and an unrelated malignant growth in the liver. A first operation to remove the intestinal cancer was deemed successful but later a liver transplant in the US was abandoned after discovery that the liver cancer has spread. The Archbishop passed away in January 2008.

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 1 ½ years 

15) MARTIN D. ABELOFF, 65

Dr Martin Abeloff, an international authority on the treatment of breast cancer and chief oncologist and director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Centre at John Hopkins University for the past 15 years, died of leukemia on September 14 2007. His leukemia, a form that is sometimes slow to grow, was diagnosed a year before that (i.e. approx September 2006).

Summary Point—From diagnosis to death: 1 year 

In his book, Dr Otis Brawley revealed a secret: Wealth in America (and elsewhere as well) is no protection from getting lousy care…in fact, wealth can increase your risk of getting lousy care.

Do you fancy getting some collateral damage?

 

FALSE HOPE IN A BOTTLE

Yeong Sek Yee & Khdijah Shaari

On June 05 2003, The New York Times published a short article written by Tom Nesi, a former director of public affairs at the drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb.  The article was strangely entitled “False Hope in a Bottle.” Curious, we decided to read further. Interestingly, we came across the book “HOPE or HYPE” by Dr Richard Deyo, MD and a Professor at the University of Washington in Seattle who described the story as “Exaggerating Benefits.” The story below is summarised based on the New York Times article and Dr Deyo’s story (read pages 45/46 of the book)

Tom Nesi described his wife, Susan, who was 52 when she was found to have a highly malignant brain cancer. They were told that the average survival with this condition was about eleven months, but they hoped for more. For about a year, Susan had been offered numerous medications, including, in the latter stages of her illness, Iressa, which was just approved by the Food and Drug Administration despite limited data about its effectiveness.

They sought care from a prestigious medical centre that offered several innovative treatments. One, called a Glidel wafer, is a dime-sized wafer that is implanted in the brain when the tumor is surgically removed. The goal was to deliver chemotherapy directly to the tumour site. The Nesis were told that this would extend Susan’s life, on average, about two months.

In the ensuing months, Susan underwent 3 brain operations and 6 hospitalizations. After the third operation, she was almost totally paralysed and unable to speak or eat. In her final months, she required two weeks in a critical care center, a full time home health aide, a feeding tube and electronic monitor, home hospital equipment, occupational therapists, social workers and medication. The costs for her care were around US $ 200,000.

As Susan lived 3 months longer than average; many doctors described the innovative treatment as a success. After the disastrous third operation, her surgeon told Tom: “We have saved your wife’s life….we have given you the ability to spend more quality time with your loved one.” Two weeks later, sustained by the feeding tube, Susan wrote on a notepad, “Depressed…no more…please.”

But according to the medical profession, the experimental treatment had worked. Susan lived almost three months longer than the average patient with glioblastoma. Somewhere in some computer database, Susan’s experimental regimen will be counted a success. She was a ”responder.” And therein lies the terrible truth behind the approval of ”miracle drugs” on the basis of ”tumor shrinkage” or ”extended days.” Susan’s life was extended. But at what cost?

Tom Nesi then faced a decision as to whether to stop the feeding tube and withhold liquids. He concluded his story by noting, “I think we need to ask ourselves whether offering terminal patients limited hope of a few more months is really beneficial. The question is not whether days are extended, but in what condition the patient lives and at what emotional and financial costs”

This is a story of well-meaning doctors (?) and a desperate patient. The presumption of both parties must have been that new technology could only help. As usual, the bias was to do something, to be aggressive. In the end, the treatment may be worse than the disease itself.

In many such cases, doctors tend to see only the good side of their interventions. They often dismiss, discount, or are wholly unaware of the downsides, which often diminish quality of life. And although new treatments often claim great benefits, we need to critically ask what the benefits are, and what we are giving up in order to have them.

FOOTNOTE: To Tom Nesi, chemotherapy is likened to FALSE HOPE IN A BOTTLE but to the late Senator Hubert Humphrey, who had bladder cancer, the chemotherapy that he endured for 1 year before he died was described (by him) as “bottled death.”  When diagnosed, he was treated with radiation after which his physician Dr Wilfred Whitmore, M.D. declared, “As far as we are concerned, the Senator is cured” Despite the cure declaration, they began treating the senator with chemotherapy. Shortly after the treatment started, Senator Humphrey regretted and called chemo “bottled death.” 

(Humphrey was the 38th Vice President of the USA from 1965 to 1969 and passed away in January 1978 at age 66).

We would like to end this article with a very brutal statement by Dr Charles Huggins, MD who was awarded the 1966 Nobel Prize for Physiology/ Medicine. As a physician, physiologist and cancer researcher at the University of Chicago, he is no quack doctor when he described chemotherapy:

  • ”There are worse things than death. One of them is chemotherapy” 

For those who have undergone chemotherapy treatment, please do share with the rest of the world what your thoughts are on this subject.

We welcome your comments.

SOURCES FOR THIS ARTICLE:

1)      HOPE OR HYPE –THE OBSESSION WITH MEDICAL ADVANCES AND THE HIGH COST OF FALSE PROMISES by Dr Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH and Dr Donald L. Patrick, PhD, MSPH.

2)   HEALING CANCER FROM INSIDE OUT by Mike Anderson

(Read story about Senator Hubert Humphrey and bladder cancer treatment)

3)   THE CANCER ODYSSEY by Margaret Brennan Bermel, MBA,

(Read about Dr Charles Huggins, MD)

4)   TOM NESI’S ARTICLE: FALSE HOPE IN A BOTTLE

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/opinion/false-hope-in-a-bottle.html

5)   ARTICLE: QUALITY OF LIFE, DIGNITY AT DEATH

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/09/opinion/L09DEAT.html

6)   ARTICLE: ARE WE TREATING CANCER, BUT KILLING THE PATIENT?  By Dr. George J Georgiou, PhD, ND, DSc. (AM)

Link: http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1392406

7)   ARTICLE: WHEN CANCER TREATMENT MIGHT KILL YOU by Theresa Brown, RN. …

Link: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/when-cancer-treatment-might-kill-you/

 8)   ARTICLE: HOW CANCER DRUGS MAKE CANCER WORSE AND KILL PATIENTS

Link: http://gizmodo.com/5876919/how-cancer-drugs-make-cancer-worse-and-kill-patients

Given honest answers … about surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy … the chances are high that the patients will “run away” from them!

YB is a 52-year old lady. About three and a half years ago she was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a mastectomy in Kuala Lumpur. It was a triple negative tumour. YB went to Singapore for follow up treatments. She received 6 cycles of chemo using FEC. Then she had 12 more cycles of chemo using Taxol and Carboplatin. No radiation was indicated.

When YB started chemo, she also took our herbs and took care of her diet. The side effects she suffered was much less compared to others. She was alright after the chemo treatment.

Unfortunately things did not turn out right. YB took a trip home to Kuala Lumpur (she was staying in Singapore) to visit relatives. She felt dizzy and started to vomit. Her condition deteriorated. Whenever she moved her head, she would feel dizzy or had severe headaches and would start to vomit.  She had to lie down. As long as she did not move her head, she was okay.

YB did a CT scan and MRI. There were tumours in her brain.

YB’s daughter wrote: 11 January 2014.

Dear Dr Chris,

My mother has a relapse of her cancer to the brain. MRI shows 3 lesions in her brain. One of them is approximately 3 cm which caused swelling and subsequently dizziness, vomiting and headache. Meanwhile, she’s been given steroid to reduce the swelling. We are planning to see you right after the full report is out.

12 January 2014::

Dear Dr Chris,

CT scan result is out and it seems that the primary tumor is from the left lung. However, my mom has not suffered any symptoms or difficulties with breathing.

What would you do if she was your mother and given the following details?

1. The neurosurgeon suggested surgery to remove the big tumour in her brain. According to him,  the two small tumours cannot be removed  surgically and YB has to undergo radiotherapy. Surgery would cost SGD6,500 and radiation cost SGD 2,000 to 3,000 (foreigner’s rate. Singapore citizen pay much less).

2. Can surgery cure her brain cancer? The surgeon said, NO, the tumour will recur. Because of that YB has to go for radiation. Whatever  it is the family was told that YB will eventually die.

3. Did the doctor indicate how long your mom could survive? The surgeon said this,

a. If patient does nothing and is only on steroid, she has 2 months to live.

b. If patient undergoes chemotherapy and radiotherapy, she has 6 to 7 months to live.

c. If patient undergoes surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, she has 6 to 7 months plus 3 months.

According to the surgeon these are based on statistics and also on the assumption the surgery goes not well without any complications.

What does the family want to do now? Everybody in the family decided to give up further medical treatment. They would rather go on herbs.

Did the doctor give you such information out front? No. We have to ask questions after questions and we get answers bit by bit. Nothing is laid out neatly like the above.

Comments:

Bravo to patient empowerment!  For you to make a decision you need honest answers. You do not get honest answers if you dare not ask! So patients, learn how to ask questions. Don’t just be satisfied with just an answer! Ask and ask, dig and dig until you are satisfied.  This is because it is your life and you have to bear the consequences of that intervention not your doctors.

After you get the answers, use your common sense to make your decision. Follow what your heart says.

It seems very clear. If doctors give honest answers … about surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy … the chances are high the patients will “run away”!

What would you do if you are told that chemotherapy spreads and makes cancer more aggressive?

What would you do if you are told the following about radiotherapy?

  • Radiation makes cancer more aggressive. 
  • Radiation reprogrammed less malignant breast cancer cells into Induced Breast Cancer Stem Cells (iBCSCs). This explains radiotherapy actually enriches the tumor population with higher levels of treatment-resistant cells.  Researchers UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center said radiation treatment killed half of the tumor cells  treated. The surviving cells are resistant to treatment and become iBCSCs. They were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the non-irradiated breast cancer cells. 
  • Radiation gives a the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to treatment-induced death of the patient.

HAVE YOU HEARD OF ONCOLOGISTS DEFRAUDING CANCER PATIENTS?

by Yeong Sek Yee & Khadijah Shaari

One night, while browsing the Internet, we came across an article (dated August 2013) that really threw us off the chair. The article that stunned us, but which has not been reported in the mainstream media, can be viewed at the following link:

Cancer doctor gives needless chemo in US 35 m fraud....says prosecutors.

LINK:http://www.today.com/news/cancer-doctor-gave-needless-chemo-35m-fraud-prosecutors-say-6C10913890

As we search further, we came across a more detailed article of the same subject published in MEDPAGE, a medical news portal which can be read at the following link:

Physician Gave Chemo to Patients without Cancer, Feds say

LINK:  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809243

Briefly, in August 2013 Oncologist Dr Farid Fata was arrested for allegedly having scammed US$35 million from Medicare over a two-year period. The following are the main points in the allegations against Dr Farid:

  • Deliberately misdiagnosed patients as having cancer to justify unnecessary cancer treatment,
  • Deliberately misdiagnosed patients without cancer to justify expensive testing
  • Administered chemotherapy unnecessarily to patients who were in remission,
  • Administered chemotherapy to end-of-life patients who will not benefit from the treatment,
  • Fabricated other diagnoses such as anemia and fatigue to justify unnecessary hematology treatments,
  • Unnecessarily distributed controlled substances to patients,
  • Administered chemotherapy to patients who had other serious medical conditions that required immediate treatment before being permitted to go to the hospital.

You can read more of Dr Farid Fata’s case (or verify the authenticity of this article) when you google CHEMOTHERAPY FRAUD or just DR FARID FATA or watch the following videos on YouTube:

1)   Michigan Oncologist Accused of Giving “Unnecessary Chemotherapy to cancer patients”

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4QVqbTTmxU

2)   Cancer doctor deliberately misdiagnoses patients

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjL_OrSkEm4

As at 2 October 2013, Dr Farid Fata is still in prison after his US $ 9 million bond has been revoked pending trial. He faces a 20 year jail sentence.

In December 2012, there was another fraudulent chemotherapy case similar to the above Dr Farid Fata case…read link below:

1)   Oncologist Dr. Meera Sachdeva gets 20 years for Medicare fraud

Link:http://pathologyblawg.com/medical-news/oncologist-meera-sachdeva-20-years-medicare-fraud/

In this case, this is how oncologist Dr Meera Sachdeva defrauded cancer patients at her cancer center –The Rose Cancer Center in Summit, Jordan, USA:

·         Syringes were re-used and different patients’ chemotherapy drugs were drawn from the same bag.

·         Chemotherapy drugs were diluted,

·         Use chemotherapy drugtreatments after their expiration date,

  • Submitted claims for chemotherapy services that were supposedly given while she was out of the country,

Dr Meera has been sentenced to a 20–year jail term. You can read more of Dr Meera Sachdeva by just googling her name or watch the following YouTube videos:

1)   Summit doctor sentenced for cancer drug fraud.

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzdzit4NsxI2)

2)   Two plead guilty in chemotherapy fraud case

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqcqNOOAJvo

 And there is yet another chemo fraud case that can blow your brains to pieces….watch the video below:

Chemo drugs diluted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6eE0WDxcQ

Concluding comments:

Are these the only “isolated” cases or are these just the “tip” of the iceberg? To be diagnosed with cancer is traumatizing enough…but to be cheated by your oncologist/doctor is like rubbing a ton of salt into a big wound. Don’t you think so?

If you have undergone chemotherapy treatment, you may have some comments/experience to share with the rest of the world. Your comments may help to save some fellow cancer patients.

SOME FURTHER RELATED REFERENCES:

If you would like to blow your brains further, read the following:

1)   How We Do Harm…this book is written by  oncologist Dr Otis Webb Brawley (also chief Medical and scientific officer and Executive Vice President of the American Cancer Society)…the book gives a detail description how cancer patients are mislead and defrauded into unnecessary treatments.

2)   FraudChemotherapy

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/chemo.htm

3)   Chemotherapy Fraud: Is This Fraud Too Big Even For 60 Minutes? http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/10/chemotheraphy-is-medical-fraud.aspx

4)   Article: The Cancer Business

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/cancer_business.htm

5)   The Cancer Report

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/521-video-the-cancer-report-documentary.html

  • or YouTube at :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=WnaBG177VIw

6)   Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/burzynski-the-movie-cancer-is-serious-business/

7)   National Cancer Institute report admits millions have been falsely

treated for ‘cancer’

http://www.naturalnews.com/042789_National_Cancer_Institute_false_treatments_misdiagnosis_epidemic.html#ixzz2k8yGp8GC

8)     Millions Wrongly Treated for ‘Cancer,’ National Cancer Institute Panel Confirms

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/millions-wrongly-treated-cancer-national-cancer-institute-panel-confirms

ARE YOU SCARED? WE ARE.

BREAST CANCER — A NINETEEN-MONTH TIMELINE

by Yeong Sek Yee & Khadijah Shaari

Allow us to share with you the sad news of the recent demise of a close relative who was diagnosed with breast in December 2011.  To us, this is a classic case of a lady who did not die because of the breast cancer – she died due to the breast cancer treatments that she diligently underwent since diagnosis.

This 65-year old lady was a very staunch and caring Christian and very much loved and admired by her siblings, relatives and friends.  Perhaps her weak point in her journey with cancer is her unquestioning loyalty to her doctors/oncologist (her son is also a medical doctor).  From Day One, she listened very faithfully to her oncologist who advised her not to consume antioxidants, herbs or other complementary treatments as these will “clash” with her chemotherapy and subsequent radiotherapy, and hence the efficacy of her conventional treatments will be compromised.

Briefly, in December 2011, when she was diagnosed with a 3.8 cm lump in her left breast, she was told by an oncologist (in Singapore) that the lump is too big for surgical removal.  She was then advised to have at least 8 sessions of chemotherapy “to shrink the tumour” before surgery could be performed.  She followed the doctor’s advice and underwent chemotherapy during the whole of 2012 – 6 sessions of EC (Epirubicin + Cyclophosphamide) followed by 5 sessions of docetaxel, which ended in January 2013.

Come January 2013, instead of the tumour shrinking, the condition of her breast became more inflamed, with a few more new lumps appearing at the sides the breast. She was then advised by her hometown oncologist to consider radiotherapy.  So she came to KL for that purpose as the radiotherapy machine in her hometown was not working.  Whilst in KL she consulted with two prominent breast surgeons, who advised that (as at January 2013), surgery was definitely not an option based on the condition of the breast after 11 sessions of chemotherapy. She subsequently did 33 sessions of radiotherapy from January to March 2013, with the intention of shrinking the five lumps.  Again, while she was undergoing radiotherapy she was warned by her oncologist and radiologist not to take any herbs or antioxidants until everything is over.  At the end of the 33 sessions she was referred back to her hometown oncologist, with a report that the cancer has metastasized to her bone.

Back in her hometown, her oncologist recommended a new drug, Eribulin, which was only currently available in Singapore (as at April 2013).  She flew to Singapore and bought 4 doses of the drug from an oncologist there at the cost of S$8,000 per dose.  However, after three jabs, her hometown’s oncologist determined that Eribulin was not suitable for her.  He subsequently recommended Cisplatin + Gemzar and she underwent four cycles of this, the last one being around mid-August, after which she was told that further chemotherapy would not work for her.  She was totally devastated.  However, as some form of hope for her to cling on, she was given oral Xeloda.

All the while during her chemotherapy treatments in 2012, radiotherapy and further chemo in 2013, this tough lady was in pain most of the time and the pain became more and more intense in the months of April through August 2013.   From April 2013 her lungs started accumulating fluids…this is usually a confirmation of metastasis to the lungs. In the month of August till her demise on Sunday, 25th August, she had to be on oxygen most of the time (in addition to morphine).

She did try some herbal treatment off and on in between her chemotherapy/radiotherapy sessions in 2013.  Obviously this could not help her much as by that time her body was a total wreck.  Further, she only changed her diet in 2013. During 2012 she “ate anything she liked” as advised by the oncologist in Singapore and from her hometown.

When I attended her wake on 27th August 2013, the first thing that her eldest son said to me was “Uncle, see – only 19 months!”  Of course her oncologist and other doctors attributed this to her triple negative breast cancer which is supposed to be an aggressive form of breast cancer. Anyway, it is always about the cancer being aggressive, and never about the toxicities and ineffectiveness of the conventional cancer treatments which is always marketed and touted as evidence-based, scientifically tested, etc.

Lately, we noticed a new current trend in breast cancer treatment very similar to this case –more and more patients are advised to have pre-surgery chemotherapy – to shrink the lump before surgery.  We are very perplexed by this – why do you need to shrink the lump first before surgery when the breast, an “external” organ, can be wholly removed by mastectomy?  We know of a lady who recently had a 5 cm lump removed by lumpectomy and is recovering well and she has refused any form of chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

This trend of pre-surgery chemotherapy first is a huge business (if you catch my drift) for the medical/cancer establishment.  This unfortunate lady paid RM80,000 for the EC and Docetaxel in 2012.  Imagine how much the drug companies/and oncologists would make if they can persuade a million ladies to do so annually, world-wide.

It is mind-boggling, and the damage to the body, and the suffering, is also mind-boggling.

Just to conclude, this is the lady’s 19-months timeline summary:

a)    December 2011 – diagnosis

b)    December 2012 – commenced EC x 6 sessions followed by Docetaxel x 5 sessions

c)     January to March 2013 – 33 sessions of radiotherapy + oral cyclosphomide.

d)    April/May 2013 – 3 sessions of Eribulin

e)     July to August 2013 – 4 sessions of Cisplatin/Gemzar.  When Cisplatin/Gemzar was stopped after the 3rd session, she was given Xeloda

f)     25th August 2013 – passed away.

Undoubtedly, she has found peace with the Lord now but you do not have to follow her timeline. Follow Olivia Newton John’s cancer journey….she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1992, did one year of chemotherapy and complemented her treatments with good nutrition, herbs, homeopathy, acupuncture and practiced meditation and prayer….and Olivia is still very much alive today (22 years later)…..watch out for her more detailed story soon.

BLOOD BOOSTING INJECTIONs (ESAs) WHILE ON CHEMO ENCOURAGE TUMOUR TO GROW!

Not many MDs, least of all an oncologist, would dare to break ranks from the rules of the medical establishment and especially from the clutches of Big Pharma in the present day cancer industry. One exception is Dr Otis Webb Brawley, MD, and oncologist and the Chief Medical and Scientific Officer and Executive Vice President of the American Cancer Society.

As we were reading the 2011 best seller in America “HOW WE DO HARM” by Dr Brawley, we were shocked to read in Chapters 6 and 7 that Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) causes tumour promotion i.e. the anemia-building drugs seemed to be encouraging tumors to grow.

How we do harm

 What Are ESAs?

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are one of the most common drugs used to treat anemia i.e. these are medication that increase the production of red blood cells. For a brief introduction, go to: http://www.anemia.org/patients/feature-articles/content.php?contentid=000379

The doctor would give you ESA or a blood boosting injection if you do not enough blood after a chemo treatment. They use “the red juice” to fight anemia by stimulating red blood cell production and “the white juice” to fight neutropenia, a deficiency of white blood cells.

If these ESAs or “hemoglobin-building” drugs are supposed to perform a useful function in overall cancer treatment, why then is Dr Brawley so vociferous against these drugs? He even mentioned that “these drugs stimulate cancer growth”

Let us examine some of the reasons:

  • The FDA approved the drugs for the treatment of anemia in cancer patients in 1993 based on data pooled from only 6 small studies that altogether enrolled a total of only 131 patients (page 76).
  • The 6 minuscule trials… asked only whether Procrit (one of the ESA drugs) had the ability to prevent blood transfusion. Not a shred of data said anything about “fatigue” or its opposite “strength” (page 77).
  • There were a lot of unanswered questions such as: was their anemia corrected? Did their underlying cancer recur? Did they die sooner? Did they face a higher risk of blood clots? (page 77).

Soon after hemoglobin-drugs were approved, a German radiation therapist named Michael Henke decided to test one of the fundamental tenets of his subspecialty: that patient with higher hemoglobin levels have better responses to radiation therapy. Henke believed in the connection between hemoglobin and response to radiation. However the study’s results didn’t come out the way Henke expected. The result of Henke’s study, which was initiated in 1997, was published in 2003. The study showed that patients who received the hemoglobin-building drug didn’t live as long as those on placebo. Also, the disease progressed more rapidly in patients receiving the drug. Henke concluded that he had encountered a biological phenomenon: the drug seemed to be encouraging tumors to grow (page 81).

In August 2003, researchers had to stop another study, the Breast Cancer Erythropoietin Survival Trial (BEST), when more women died on Procrit than on the control arm. In both the Henke trial and BEST trial, the survival curve showed an increased risk of death from cancer, which suggested something you don’t want to see in patients you are treating for cancer –  tumour growth (page 82).

In other words, pharmaceutical companies were promoting an untested therapy that was supposed to make patients feel better and stronger when, in fact, it caused stroke and heart attacks and in some cases made tumors grow (page 73).

According to Dr Brawley, FDA approved these drugs to reduce the risk of blood transfusion in patients with solid tumours treated with chemotherapy. That’s it. Not a word was said about “tiredness”, not a word about “cancer fatigue”

In Chapter 6, Red Juice and Chapter 7, Tumour Progression, Dr Brawley described how cancer patients are routinely “offered” hemoglobin-building drugs to even borderline anemia, a common side effect of cancer drugs. The drug companies manufactured a medical condition called “cancer fatigue” and nurses were trained to “suggest” “erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA)” to all patients undergoing chemotherapy – “the red juice” to fight anemia by stimulating red blood cell production and “the white juice” to fight neutropenia, a deficiency of white blood cells.

  • With powerful incentives set in motion, many hospitals and oncology practices in the US instructed nurses to ask leading questions about “fatigue” with the intent of expanding sales to a growing number of patients and upping the dosage to each patient. This is referred to as “an ESA treatment opportunity”
  • These drugs are still being prescribed routinely. According to Dr Brawley,” these ESA drugs were not used to cure disease or make patients feel better. They are used to make money for doctors and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of patients, insurance companies and taxpayers “(page 97)
  • Also the disease progressed more rapidly in patients receiving the drug (page 81) i.e. the drug seemed to be encouraging tumors to grow…this compound is a stimulant, a “tumor fertilizer”. A patient with active disease is more likely to suffer tumour progression: the more tumor you have, the more tumor there is to stimulate!! (page 97). 
  • Commenting further on ESA drugs, some doctors didn’t bother to check what the patient’s hemoglobin was and erred on the side of giving the ESA every time they give chemotherapy. Doctors routinely prescribed the drugs for uses in which it had not been studied-such as anemia caused by cancer itself, as opposed to anemia caused by chemotherapy (page 78).

Besides Dr Brawley’s comments in the book, we searched further for sound scientific validation of ESAs causing tumor promotion. These are extracted from prominent sources like the FDA, Journal of Clinical Cancer Research, Annals of Oncology, British Journal of Cancer, PubMed Medline, Journal of Oncology Practice, etc. There are lots more. The following are some of the links you may be interested to read:

1)      THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) of the US issued a Drug Safety Communication dated 26/2/2010 under the following title: “Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs): Procrit, Epogen and Aranesp.”

In the article, the FDA warned that cancer patients using ESAs should understand the risks associated with the use of ESAs. These risks include:

  • ESAs may cause tumors to grow faster.
  • ESAs may cause some patients to die sooner.
  • ESAs may cause some patients to develop blood clots, and serious heart problems such as a heart attack, heart failure or stroke.

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm200297.htm

2)      In July 2011, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH, in its journal, Clinical Cancer Research published an article entitled: The Role of Erythropoietin and Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents in Tumor Progression” It reported that:

  • Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) are used clinically for treating cancer-related anemia [chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA)].
  • Recent clinical trials have reported increased adverse events and/or reduced survival in ESA-treated cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, potentially related to EPO-induced cancer progression.

 http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/17/20/6373.abstract

3)      THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL ONCOLOGY in its journal, Annals of Oncology (2010) published the following guidelines: “Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of anemia in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for use.” The lead author, Professor Schrijvers, although on the Advisory Board of Johnson and Johnson admitted the following:

  • The influence of ESAs on tumour response and overall survival in anemic cancer patients remains unclear. Several randomized trials have demonstrated decreased survival times and poorer loco-regional control or progression-free survival 
  • Other recent meta-analyses showed that ESAs increase and worsened overall survival when given to cancer patients. 

 http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/suppl_5/v244.full

4)      In September 2007, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY published the following article in its Journal of Oncology Practice: “Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents: Continued Challenges” in which:

·         The FDA revised both the epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa product labels, with new “black box” warnings and expanded information on safety, tumor progression, and survival.

·         Additionally, the new warning states that ESAs are not indicated for patients with active malignant disease receiving neither chemotherapy nor radiotherapy.

 http://jop.ascopubs.org/content/3/5/248.full

5)      In March 2012, THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER (of the CANCER RESEARCH of UK) published several research studies done on the usage of ESAs and concluded that….”several trials have reported an association between ESA use and increased disease progression and/or mortality” The article is entitled: “Effects of erythropoietin receptors and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on disease progression in cancer”

 http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v106/n7/full/bjc201242a.html

In another book, A WORLD WITHOUT CANCER, Dr Margaret Cuomo, a radiologist also stated that… “even drugs used to treat the side effects of chemotherapy have been linked to secondary cancers”. For example, patients who need medication to raise their white blood cell counts may be injected with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), a substance normally found in the blood. Researchers observed that this doubled the risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)… (page 69)

READ THE FOLLOWING LINKS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON MDS/AML: 

1)   THE STORY OF ROBIN ROBERTS:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/robin-roberts-myelodysplastic-syndrome-diagnosis-beat/story?id=16540293#.UZnTWaKLC-U

2)   In 2007, THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (US) published the following article in its Journal (JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst Volume 99, Issue 3 pp. 196-205).…. “Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplastic Syndrome Following Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors during Breast Cancer Adjuvant Chemotherapy” The article concluded that….”the use of G-CSF was associated with a doubling in the risk of subsequent AML or MDS among the population that we studied”……

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/3/196.short

FOOTNOTE: In Malaysia, these ESAs (and G-CSF) are commonly referred to as “booster” or “booster jabs” and are generally given after the 3rd or 4th cycle of chemotherapy when the patient’s RBC, WBC, Platelets, Hemoglobin, etc are low. These booster jabs are costly…..and that is why patients are warned not to use cheaper and (safer) methods (because it will clash with the chemo drugs!!)

A POINT TO PONDER UPON:

When a patient decides on chemotherapy treatment, he or she expects to be healed and not to have the cancer spread or suffer second malignancies shortly after completion of the scientifically tested and proven treatments. And to be given ESAs or G-CSFs which later promotes tumour growth isn’t it too much for the patients to bear? Is this a double bonus or a double whammy for the patients? (Please note we have not factored in the damaging side effects of radiotherapy into the above scenario).

We welcome your views.

Is The Present Day Cancer Treatment Based on Faulty and Inadequate Science?

Fall-into-hole

Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. This great scientist went on to say that “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.”

You may interpret the above quotations anyway you like and for whatever reason or circumstances you like. Let me put them in the perspective of my own work – herbal therapy for cancer. If I have patients coming to me  every day and I prescribe  A, B or C to them and they don’t get well. I must be a real idiot to keep on giving out the same A, B or C to them again and again hoping that one day someone get cured!

To avoid being an idiot, I tell patients to stop taking our herbs if they feel that they are NOT getting any better after two or three weeks. We do not want to mislead you nor waste your precious time. I take this stance because I really believe in what Einstein said.

There is another lesson I learnt from Einstein. To him complex problems may not need complex answers. There can  just be a simple answer to it! But the problem is, many people in this world want to believe that a complex problem must have a “scientific, complicated and complex” answer. That is why we end up with having “experts.”

These so-called experts are highly educated people who talk a language that you and I may not understand. They make things to appear complicated and complex (so that their expertise are always required!)  Let me repeat, any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It needs a real touch of humility, courage and a lot of common sense to see things differently. In short, complex problem can just be solved simply! Unfortunately again, to many people simple answers are not impressive – too good to be true!

For the past week,  I spent some time surfing the net in addition to reading a book.  I have shared with you what I read about the insights of Professor Paul Davies in the previous posting, Looking At Cancer Through the Eyes of a Physical Scientist, Stop thinking cancer as a disease! I don’t think we need to cure cancer.

I must admit I don’t know if I am happy or I am angry after reading all these. Perhaps a mixture of both.

I am happy, because I thought the experts have decided to wake up and they don’t want to be insane (as defined above) anymore. For the past many decades the cancer problem was handled by “experts” who make things more complex and violent. And the result was dismal. Then not too long ago, someone important decided that perhaps non-cancer experts could provide a better solution to the present day cancer problem. They have decided that it is time to see things from outside the box. For that, I am real glad.

Why was I angry at the same time? If you hear stories day in and day out that people don’t get better because of someone else’s “insanity” you cannot help but become angry – why does the world allow or even encourage such a thing to happen? I don’t have to answer that question! Some patients know why.

And to make things even worse, alternative healers  who propose something “effective” but outside the norm or prevailing paradigm are labeled as quacks or snake oil peddlers.

In this second posting, I ask this question: is the present day cancer treatment based on faulty and inadequate science? I don’t have to answer that question either. Here are some research papers that I came across. Bear with me if you find it difficult to understand the jargons used and the ideas beside the reports.

In a paper, Cancer treatment as a game published in Physical Biology, 2012, Paul Orlando et al wrote:

  • Chemotherapy for metastatic cancer commonly fails due to evolution of drug resistance in tumor cells.
  • We view cancer treatment as a game in which the oncologists choose a therapy and tumors ‘choose’ an adaptive strategy.

Read more: http://iopscience.iop.org/1478-3975/9/6/065007/article

In a paper by Ariosto Silva et al (Cancer Res; 72(24); 6362–70. 2012.)

  • Many cancers adapt to chemotherapeutic agents by upregulating membrane efflux pumps that export drugs from the cytoplasm, but this response comes at an energetic cost. Chemoresistant cells must consume excess resources to maintain resistance mechanisms.
  • In breast cancer patients, expression of these pumps is low in tumors before therapy but increases after treatment.
    • The authors proposed a new method of treatment which they called “adaptive therapy.” They wrote: “Our findings challenge the existing flawed paradigm of maximum dose treatment, a strategy that inevitably produces drug resistance.”

Source: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/72/24/6362.abstract)

What is adaptive therapy?

  • At the moment, the future of cancer research seems to be centered in the field of targeted chemotherapy. However, it is evident that currently neither conventional nor targeted chemotherapies will suffice against resilient tumors. 
  • Conventional therapies generally aim for maximum cell death in the shortest amount of time using fixed regimens of drugs designed to eliminate as much of the tumor mass as possible under tolerable levels of toxicity to the patient. 
  • However, our perception of cancer has begun to change. It is becoming increasingly evident that an individual’s cancer can be viewed as a Darwinian ecosystem containing a heterogeneous mixture of genetically distinct cancer cell types that compete amongst each other for space and resources. 
  • This competition, combined with conditions within the tumor micro-environment and cancer phenotypes conducive to increased DNA damage, stimulate the rapid evolution of tumor lineages. Unfortunately, this often renders current therapies ineffective against highly adaptable cancers that quickly develop resistant cell types. 
  •  Adaptive Therapy, a relatively new field of cancer treatment, has the potential to counteract cancer’s ability to adapt. 
  • When intensive drug regimens are applied, the competition pressure of the chemosensitive cells is removed. This allows the resistant cells to proliferate freely, essentially dooming the patient. 
  • An adaptive approach would take advantage of this discrepancy in fitness to hold the overall population of cancer cells at a low constant, avoiding the possibility of tumors consisting entirely of resistant cells. Essentially, the ultimate goal of adaptive therapy would be to manage a tumor mass efficiently by administering drugs in a dynamic regimen tailored to each individual cancer, thereby allowing the patient to effectively outlive the cancer by managing its growth over time.

Source: http://islaslab.blogspot.com/2011/05/cancer-management-through-adaptive.html

In another paper, Adaptive therapy (Cancer Research, 69:4894-903,2009) Gatenby et al. wrote:

  • A number of successful systemic therapies are available for treatment of disseminated cancers. However, tumor response is often transient, and therapy frequently fails due to emergence of resistant populations. The latter reflects the temporal and spatial heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment as well as the evolutionary capacity of cancer phenotypes to adapt to therapeutic perturbations.
  • Although cancers are highly dynamic systems, cancer therapy is typically administered according to a fixed, linear protocol.
  • If resistant populations are present before administration of therapy, treatments designed to kill maximum numbers of cancer cells remove this inhibitory effect and actually promote more rapid growth of the resistant populations.
  • We present an alternative approach in which treatment is continuously modulated to achieve a fixed tumor population. The goal of adaptive therapy is to enforce a stable tumor burden by permitting a significant population of chemosensitive cells to survive so that they, in turn, suppress proliferation of the less fit but chemoresistant subpopulations. 

In a paper, Physics of cancer – the impact of heterogeneity, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, Vol. 3: 363-382, 2012, Qiucen Zhang and Robert Austin wrote:

  • It is a common mistake to view cancer as a single disease with a single possible cure which we have just not found yet.
  • In reality cancer takes on many forms that share a common symptom: uncontrolled cell growth and successful invasion of cancer colonies to remote regions of the body.
  • The key reason why we may never be able to defeat cancer may lie in the extreme heterogeneity of the population of the cells in a tumor: there is no one magic bullet.
  • All malignant cancers… are fundamentally governed by Darwinian dynamics.
  • The process of carcinogenesis requires genetic instability and highly selective local microenvironments, the combination of which promotes somatic evolution.
  • These microenvironmental forces, specifically hypoxia (low oxygen conditions), acidosis and reactive oxygen species, are not only highly selective, but are also able to induce genetic instability.
  • As a result, malignant cancers are dynamically evolving clades of cells living in distinct microhabitats that almost certainly ensure the emergence of therapy-resistant populations.
  • Cytotoxic cancer therapies also impose intense evolutionary selection pressures on the surviving cells and thus increase the evolutionary rate. 

Gillies et al ( Nat Rev Cancer. 12: 487-93, 2012) in their paper Evolutionary dynamics of carcinogenesis and why targeted therapy does not work.

Eric Schuur in his blog post Time to Rethink Cancer Therapy? on 28 November 2012 wrote:

  • The feeling of frustration in chasing cancer up the path only to have it resurrect out of seemingly nowhere still further upstream is a signal to me. I have sensed in this frustration a signal to think about cancer pathogenesis and treatment in new ways, like I’m sure others have.
  • Recently I have been gratified to hear a number of researchers propose new views of what cancer is and new strategies for treating it.
  • I have been a member of a tumor microenvironment interest group for a while, mostly to keep an ear to the ground in that area. Having spent many years trying to grow cancer cells in various ways, it is clear to me that they depend heavily on their microenvironment to survive.
  • I noticed a few publications suggesting that resistance to chemical therapy may be mediated by more than just the response of the tumor cells. These studies suggest that the tumor microenvironment may provide protection from anti-cancer agents by secreting of growth factors from stromal cells intermingled with the tumor cells.
  • In one study, WNT16B growth factor secretion was induced in stromal fibroblasts, which in turn protected the cancer cells from programmed cell death.
  • Rethinking cancer therapy has been proposed by Robert Gatenby and colleagues for some time.

Source:  http://mendelspod.com/blog/time-to-rethink-cancer-therapy#sthash.EvaA1gqw.dpbs

Comments

Let me briefly summarise what these researchers said.

1. Chemotherapy for metastatic cancer commonly fails due to evolution of tumour cells to become  drug resistant.

2. So going to the oncologist is like playing a game .. the oncologists choose a therapy and the tumors ‘choose’ an adaptive strategy. A famous Singapore oncologist put it in a different way – It is just like buying a lottery hoping to strike a jackpot!

3. When chemo drugs are pumped into you, the cancer cells work overtime to pump out the drugs from their cells. If no chemo drugs were applied, the pump activity was low. This activity increased after chemo treatment. Increased activity means the cells need more energy – will this not make your MORE sick?

4. The researchers said that the commonly practised maximum-dose-shoot-to-kill treatment is flawed.  Oncologists have been doing this for years. And the patients are made to believe that the stronger the dosage of poison used the higher the chances of  “cure.” And that practice has now been challenged!

5. Now there is a new buzz word —  the future of cancer research seems to be centered in the field of targeted chemotherapy.  Take note of the terminology used nowadays, Targeted Therapy! However, it is evident that currently neither conventional nor targeted chemotherapies will suffice against resilient tumors. Target therapy make a lot of money but for patients I don’t see much meaningful results. Very often, we see disappointment. Why?

6. The researchers provide the answer:  tumor response is often transient, and therapy frequently fails due to emergence of resistant populations. Why are they resistant to the chemo-drugs? The latter reflects the temporal and spatial heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment as well as the evolutionary capacity of cancer phenotypes to adapt to therapeutic perturbations.

7. Is the kill-all-cancer-cells strategy that is done today the correct approach? Not so. You don’t have to kill all the cancer cells in your body. The goal of adaptive therapy is to enforce a stable tumor burden by permitting a significant population of chemosensitive cells to survive so that they, in turn, suppress proliferation of the less fit but chemoresistant subpopulations.

8. It is a common mistake to view cancer as a single disease with a single possible cure which we have just not found yet. The key reason why we may never be able to defeat cancer may lie in the extreme heterogeneity of the population of the cells in a tumor: there is no one magic bullet.

9. The process of cancer that occurs in your body requires genetic instability and highly selective local microenvironments, the combination of which promotes somatic evolution. Hypoxia (low oxygen conditions), acidosis and reactive oxygen species … are also able to induce genetic instability. Don’t blame it all on only the  genes. You don’t have to remove your two beautiful breasts trying to prevent cancer! O, poor actress? There are MORE to it than just the genes.

10. Malignant cancers are dynamically evolving … living in distinct microhabitats that almost certainly ensure the emergence of therapy-resistant populations. Cytotoxic cancer therapies also impose intense evolutionary selection pressures on the surviving cells and thus increase the evolutionary rate. Take note, cytotoxic cancer therapies also contribute to this problem! You don’t cure cancer – you make cancer – with chemotherapy!

11. At long last, someone –  Eric Schuur in his blog post said: Time to Rethink Cancer Therapy? Having spent many years trying to grow cancer cells in various ways, it is clear to me that they depend heavily on their microenvironment to survive. Cancer treatment is not just about KILLING cancer cells. There is more to this!

12. If there is one message you need to know, here it is: Chemotherapy Spreads Cancer and Makes It More Aggressive.  (Click link to read more.)

If you have appetite for more, read my next post: Quotations from: NEVER FEAR CANCER AGAIN.

Looking At Cancer Through the Eyes of a Physical Scientist

Stop thinking cancer as a disease! I don’t think we need to cure cancer

Cancer research has traditionally been carried out by biologists and medical researchers. They did not seem to get  anywhere, in spite of being able to generate tons and tons of data.

In 2008, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) created 12 “Physical Science-Oncology Centers institutions” and sponsored mathematicians and physical scientists to initiate new, non-traditional approaches to cancer research.

NCI Director John E. Niederhuber said: “By bringing a fresh set of eyes to the study of cancer, these new centers have great potential to advance, and sometimes challenge, accepted theories about cancer and its supportive microenvironment. Physical scientists think in terms of time, space, pressure, heat and evolution in ways that we hope will lead to new understandings of the multitude of forces that govern cancer.”

One of the scientists involved in the “rethinking”  of cancer is Professor Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist and  astrobiologist. He is Regents’ Professor and Director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative, and Principal Investigator in the Center for the Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology, all at Arizona State University.

I have the benefit of reading some of Dr. Davies’  papers found in the internet.

Physics not biology may be key to beating cancer. Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21728970.200-physics-not-biology-may-be-key-to-beating-cancer.html

Cancer: The beat of an ancient drum. Source: The Guardian,  25 April 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/cancer-evolution-ancient-toolkit-genes

New research program to approach cancer studies differently. Source: http://www.statepress.com/archive/node/8973 

Rethinking cancer. Physics World, 2010. Source: http://cancer-insights.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Physics-World-June-20101.pdf 

For your information, let me quote what this learned, non-medical professor said about cancer. Indeed we need non-medical researchers to call a spade a spade. Let’s hope that those in the medical profession take heed.

Present Day Cancer Research

  • Cancer touches almost everyone in some way. Forty years ago President Richard Nixon declared a “war on cancer”. Yet in spite of $100 billion of taxpayer-funded research in the US alone, the mortality and morbidity rates for most cancers have remained almost unchanged. 
  • Dozens of much-hyped “cures” developed by drug companies are either useless or have marginal effect. 
  • Billions of dollars have been spent on cancer research and a million research papers have been published, yet most cancer sufferers have not benefited greatly from that effort. 
  • With the exception of a handful of cancer types, such as childhood leukaemia, progress on treatments has been limited to baby steps …  leading to marginal extensions of life expectancy.
  • Cancer biology is a subject about which a vast amount is known but very little is understood. So could it be that researchers cannot see the wood for the trees? 
  • Right now, the huge cancer research programme is long on technical data, but short on understanding.
  • Cancer research is dominated by genetics and biochemistry. That’s why we have the therapies, genetic and chemotherapy, as the main approaches. I think that we can open up a whole new frontier just by thinking about the problem in a totally different way.

Changing Concept of Cell

  • In the 19th century, living organisms were widely regarded as machines infused by vital forces.
  • Biologists eventually came to realise that cells are … complex networks of chemical reaction pathways.
  • Then came the genetics revolution, which describes life in the informational language of instructions, codes and signalling.

Mainstream research today focuses almost exclusively on chemical pathways or genetic sequencing. For example, drugs are designed to block reaction pathways implicated in cancer. But while of great scientific interest, such projects have not led to the much-anticipated breakthrough. Why?

There are fundamental obstacles: living cells, including cancer cells, are a bottomless pit of complexity, and cancer cells are notoriously heterogeneous. A reductionist approach that seeks to unravel the details of every pathway of every cancer cell type might employ researchers for decades and consume billions of dollars, with little impact clinically.

  • Here is …  another way of looking at cells. In addition to being bags of chemicals and information processing systems, they are also physical objects, with properties such as size, mass, shape, elasticity, free energy, surface stickiness and electrical potential. Cancer cells contain pumps, levers, pulleys and other paraphernalia familiar to physicists and engineers. Furthermore, many of these properties are known to change systematically as cancer progresses in malignancy.
  • The challenge is now to unify all three pictures – chemical, genetic and mechanistic.

Need to Change the Perception About Disease and Cure

  • To make a start …  it is helpful to stop thinking of cancer as a disease to be cured.
  • Many accounts misleadingly describe cancer as rogue cells running amok.
  • Cancer cells are not themselves “germs”; rather, they are part of one’s own body, misbehaving in a manner that may produce undesirable consequences for the organism. 
  • I don’t think we need to cure cancer.  We do not need a “cure”; rather, we need to better control and manage how cancer cells behave and, ideally, prevent cells turning malignant in the first place. 
  • In fact, I don’t really think of cancer as a disease as much as an alternative form of living matter. We don’t need to cure it, we just need to manage it for long enough that people die of something else. 
  • It is a misconception to think that people either “have cancer” or not. Cancers usually go through a progression from mostly innocuous progenitor cells to full blown malignancy, and at any given time most people (at least those of middle age and beyond) harbour cancer cells and even small tumours in their bodies that produce no ill effects.
  • Cancer cells are not the invincible enemy of folklore, but recalcitrant variants of healthy cells that face their own struggle for survival against the body’s immune system. 
  • We need to get away from the notion of a cure, and think of controlling or managing cancer. And just as the effects of ageing can be mitigated without a full understanding of the process, the same could be true of cancer. 

Darwinism and Cancer: the Evolutionary Roots

  • With no prior knowledge of cancer, I started asking some very basic questions. What struck me from the outset is that something as pervasive and stubborn as cancer must be a deep part of the story of life itself. 
  • Sure enough, cancer is found in almost all multicellular organisms, suggesting its origins stretch back hundreds of millions of years. 
  • Oncologists tend to think of cancer as a motley collection of cells gone berserk, but to me the way that tumours grow and spread to other organs indicates an organised and systematic strategy, designed to evade all that the body and the medical profession can throw at it. Such well-honed behaviour suggests they are the product of a long period of biological evolution. 
  • Cancer is pervasive among all organisms (not just mammals) in which adult cells proliferate. There is a simple – some may say simplistic – Darwinian explanation of cancer’s insidiousness, which is based on the fact that all life on Earth was originally single-celled. Each cell had a basic imperative: replicate, replicate, replicate. However, the emergence of multicellular organisms about 550million years ago required individual cells to co-operate by subordinating their own selfish genetic agenda to that of the organism as a whole.
  • The genes needed to fashion the primitive cellular aggregates of the Proterozoic era did not all become defunct. Some were incorporated into the genomes of later, more sophisticated, organisms, and lurk inside human beings to this day. That’s because they still serve a crucial function.
  • It  has long been recognised that there are many similarities between cancer and embryo development, and evidence is mounting that some genes expressed during embryogenesis get re-awakened in cancer.  When an embryo develops, its genes lay down a body plan, starting with the most basic and most ancient features.
  • So when an embryo develops, identical stem cells progressively differentiate into specialized cells that differ from organ to organ – be it kidney, brain or lung. All these cells contain the same genes, but not all of the genes are constantly active. The body has a number of chemical mechanisms to switch genes on and off, which allow cells in different organs to have different properties that can vary with time. The colon, for example, needs to rapidly replenish cells sloughed off by the passage of food, whereas the cells in other organs, such as in the brain, have a slow turnover and reproduce only rarely. 
  • With advancing age, however, that command and control system develops flaws. If a cell does stop responding properly to the regulatory signals, it may go on reproducing in an uncontrolled way, forming a tumour specific to the organ in which it arises. 
  • The implications of our theory, if correct, are profound. Rather than cancers being rogue cells degenerating randomly into genetic chaos, they are better regarded as organised footsoldiers marching to the beat of an ancient drum, recapitulating a billion-year-old lifestyle. As cancer progresses in the body, so more and more of the ancestral core within the genetic toolkit is activated, replaying evolution’s story in reverse sequence. And each step confers a more malignant trait, making the oncologist’s job harder. 
  • It is well known that cells regulate the action of genes not just as a result of chemical signals, but because of the physical properties of their micro-environment. They can sense forces such as shear stresses and the elasticity of nearby tissue. They are also responsive to temperature, electric fields, pH, pressure and oxygen concentration. Most normal cells seem to come pre-loaded with a “cancer subroutine” that can be triggered by a variety of insults.

Metastasis – the Spread of Cancer

  • Only 10 percent of people die from primary tumors.  The mere presence of cancer cells in the body is not in itself necessarily a danger. 
  • It is their ability to target, invade and cling to other tissues that leads to problems. 
  • Most existing cancer treatments involve trying to remove a tumour surgically or destroying it with radiation … oncologists are often in the dark about why certain drugs actually work, or why normal dose–response relationships do not seem to apply. Cancer cells are notorious for mutating rapidly, often developing resistance to specific drugs or undergoing a resurgence years later with an acquired immunity somehow remembered. 
  • Chemotherapy can be effective at shrinking tumours and prolonging life somewhat, but …  can even be counter-productive by leaving a handful of resistant cells alive with no competition to arrest their explosive spread. As a result, drugs are rarely the perfect solution. 
  • When cancer cells spread around the body, this is a physics problem. These cells are microscopic bodies being swept along in this raging torrent. They wriggle around, they latch on to surfaces, they drill their way through. This is the sort of language that physicists and engineers can understand.  
  • Although metastasis seems fiendishly efficient, most disseminated cancer cells never go on to cause trouble. The vast majority die, and the survivors may lie dormant for years or even decades, either as individual, quiescent, cells in the bone marrow, or as micro-metastases in tissues, before erupting into proliferating secondary tumours. 
  • When tumours start shedding cells into the bloodstream and lymphatic system, allowing the cancer to spread around the body, a secondary tumour may then develop in organs far removed from the original. 
  • The spread of cancer presents many possibilities for clinical intervention once the dream of a cure has been abandoned. For example, if the period of dormancy can be extended by, say, a factor of five, many breast, colon and prostate cancers would cease to be a health issue. How could this be achieved? 
  • A key hallmark of cancer is that it can also grow in an organ where it does not belong; for example, a prostate-cancer cell may grow in a lymph node, or an ovarian-cancer cell in the liver. 
  • Metastatic cells may lie dormant, like spores, for many years in foreign organs, evading the body’s immune system while retaining their potency. Healthy cells, in contrast, soon die if they are transported beyond their rightful organ. 
  • Although tumour cells struggle to obtain oxygen from the normal blood supply, in response they can switch their metabolism to a low-oxygen cycle, thereby creating acidic conditions as a by-product that can harm other cells. In some respects, the self-centred nature of cancer cells is a reversion to an ancient, pre-multicellular lifestyle. 
  • Cancer cells are therefore neither rogue “selfish cells”, nor do they display the collective discipline of organisms with fully differentiated organs. They fall somewhere in between, perhaps resembling an early form of loosely organized cell colonies. 
  • Nowadays, most cancer researchers adopt a “followthe-genes” approach, based on the notion that an accumulation of defective (mutated) or misbehaving genes are the primary cause of cancer. Humans have between 20 000 and 30 000 genes in total, but many are switched off depending on the type of cell or its stage of growth.

Comments 

The world ought to be glad to learn that at last someone has decided that perhaps non-medical scientists ought to have a look at cancer from a different perspective. So the US National Cancer Institute decided to invite non-medical experts to research on cancer.

Is this not what Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of the 20th century said years back?

  • We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
  • When all think alike, no one thinks very much.

I am happy that Professor Paul Davies had come out with his new insights about cancer. He made these suggestions:

  • STOP thinking of cancer as a disease to be cured that must be totally destroyed or bombed out of existence.
  • STOP frightening  or put FEAR in us that cancer consist of rogue cells running amok. These are not an enemy. It is a part of the complexity of life that we inherited since life on earth begun. 
  • TEACH us how to manage the cancer like we manage our ageing process.

For years, practitioners of alternative healing  are saying the same things.  At CA Care I have been telling patients to learn how to live with their cancer. There is no need to fight. Fighting to me implies “war” – and we don’t want to start a war in our body. We need peace and harmony. When the times comes, let us die with our cancer.

Watch this video.

Many cancer patients come to us with a very naive notion. They are bought up by the idea that chemo is going to destroy all the cancer cells and they will be cured. The enemy in the body is done with. Soon afterwards many patients learn the folly of their ignorance.

Then,  they are told,  If the medical treatments cannot destroy all, at least the cancer is brought under control. Here again patients are just being misled — read the next posting to know that medical treatments could actually cause cancer to spread more and make it even more aggressive!`

5 Chemo does not curecancer

Brain Cancer: Radiotherapy – Recurrence; Chemo – Recurrence; and Avastin – Dead

1-Doctor-mistakes-buried-in

It is indeed with a heavy heart that we have to write this story. However, let us pray that similar story like this does not have to be played out all too often in this world of medicine.  May you all find wisdom and learn from this sad experience.

In the month of May, I had this exchange of e-mails.

1 May 2013  Dear Dr. K.H. Teo,

Our family and I migrated to Australia 22 years ago in 1990 from Malaysia as a skilled migrants and live in Australia ever since.

This is very sad to let you know that my young Architect daughter has brain cancer (grade IV Glioblastoma multiforme) which diagnosed six months ago and under chemo treatment by cancer Specialist in … Australia.

I searched the internet and found that your holistic approach towards healing and advocate the use of herbs for all cancer patient. I would like to buy your herbs. We have a strong faith in Nichiren Buddhism (Japanese) and praying hard for my daughter recovery. She has a positive attitude (and looking towards to be better healthy life.

Kindly let me know the cost and instructions so that I can remit money to you.

Sincerely thanks. Please reply. Kind regards.

Reply: I am sorry we cannot help patients from foreign countries, especially from Australia. We may have problems with your quarantine. Also we are not a direct selling outfit. Chris.

1 May 2013   Dear Dr. K.H. Teo,

Thanks for your email reply.

I try very hard to contact you through the phone on +604 – 6595881 and it goes to a fax tone.  Can you please email me your direct phone contact (not mobile) so that we can have a phone conversation and it does not cost me very much.

I can always take a flight back Penang to buy the herbal medicine from you after you have establish which type of herbs are good for my daughter and bring them myself.

I am very well verse of her brain cancer illness conditions and I can explain to you thoroughly every aspect of her cancer condition and her history. I have a medical file which recorded every chemo treatment and western medicine she has taken including chemo drugs – Termozolmide (Temodal) and now on Avastin (bevacizumab) infusion.

I am waiting for your email now and call you, please.

My family and I are in very desperate situation and we have a lot of pain in our mind and hearts. Hope you understand our feeling as parents and we are praying very hard and trying extremely hard to save our daughter’s life.

Sincerely thanks. Regards.

Reply: You can come and see me with all the medical reports and can take back the herbs. Last week I have a 6 year old girl with brain cancer (like your daughter). No surgery, no chemo because it does not work for such cancer. She took herbs and can now go back to school. Read this story, https://cancercaremalaysia.com/2013/05/23/helping-a-six-year-old-with-cancer-of-the-brain-stem/

Avastin — spreads cancer! That’s the drug they gave you!

There is NO need to talk to me over the phone because there is NOTHING I can do. I need to see the scans and medical reports. Unfortunately the herbs are very bitter and have lousy taste and smell. Not many people can drink them. But that 6-year-old could take them without problem.

I do not talk over the phone for obvious reason that everyone on this earth want to talk to me about their problems. I just cannot cope. Actually I would not want to have patients from overseas. ..NO use …but if you want to come, it is okay with me and then you can get your friends and relatives to send the herbs to you. I cannot handle all these chores.

HER MEDICAL HISTORY

1 May 2013  Dear Dr. Teo,

Let me give you a brief medical history of my daughter. She has brain cancer – Grade IV Glioblastoma multiforme on her Brain Stem diagnosed 6 months ago in October 2012.

Very much earlier in September 2009, she had diffused Glioma on her brain stem and was treated with 30 doses of Radiation-Chemotherapy over a period of 6 weeks and the Diffused Glioma shrunk and life was back to normal.

Things started to change end of October 2012, recurrence of diffused low grade brain stem glioma with high grade transformation in the cerebellum. Also, they are aggressive tumours now. Admitted to hospital and neurosurgeon has done a surgery to implant a Brain Shunt to relief the brain pressure built up and at the same time, biopsy taken.

On 9 November 2012, first Termozolomide (Temodal tablets 300mg each day) Chemotherapy for 5 days and rest for 23 days (1cycle) for 5 cycles and blood test was done before each Chemo treatment. After 2 cycles, on 2 January 2013, MRI Head Scan showed the tumours actually shrunk and the family jumped with joy.  Tumours responded to chemo treatment. So continued with Termozolomide Chemo until after the fifth Chemo,

MRI Head Scan on 25 March 2013 was done and sad to say that the tumours had grown back to size   even bigger than before. Her condition deteriorated quickly, Medical Oncologist changed to the use of Avastin (becacizumab) infusion. First Avastin infusion was on 4 April 2013. After 3 weeks, second  Avastin Infusion on 24 April 2013. And at present, her condition seems not improving.

She is bed bound, unable to sit on wheelchair, blur vision, slurred speech, right hand shaking, upper and lower limbs very weak, overall health very weak and unable to eat by herself – feeding needed by mother. Her condition has deteriorated fast just a matter of 4 weeks.

Dr. Teo, I will definitely come over to consult you and show you all the MRI head scans.  I am really working extremely hard to save my daughter. Sincerely thanks, Please reply. Regards.

Reply: There is NO hurry to come and see me. She did not get cancer yesterday — she got cancer many years ago yet. No need to rush. Before you come please know that:

a) There is NO cure for cancer. The type of cancer she has cannot be cure by anybody.

b) The most intelligent thing to do is STOP doing the chemo because it does not work and may even spread the cancer more. See what Avastin does to people in the attached file.

c) After that go to www.BookOnCancer.org and read my book on Cancer What Now — there I have explained everything you need to know. This is written specially for people who come and see me and their expectations.

d) Don’t be misled that there is a cure for cancer. THERE IS NONE. Even if you come to me in a hurry there is NOTHING much I can do except to give you the herbs and hope for the best.

e) I see problems like yours everyday — when doctors gave up, they come to me and expect me to cure them. NO way.

Provided you know what you are coming in here for it is okay with me. Don’t be cheated by people who want to make quick bucks from you.Chris

1 May 2013   Hi Dr. Teo,

Very kind of you for your quick reply.

I have my own reason of coming to see you ASAP and I will explain to you when I see you either on this Friday 3 May 2013 or this Sunday 5 May 2013.

We know there is no cure for this brain cancer and we don’t expect very much as well but just to prolong her life and with your herbs so that she can live a few more year with her strong religious faith, positive attitude and thinking which can create her own strong immune system, control diet and then there is a chance for her to live longer.

At present, she is bed bound and can’t eat by herself, terrible to see my own daughter like this and it is very painful for parents.

Tomorrow morning I will ask my son to book a flight to KL and connecting flight to Penang by Air Asia and hopefully to see Friday or Sunday afternoon as stated in the website or please advise. I think the flight will be on this Friday early morning at 5 am. Perth time is the same as Penang time. My son is studying hard for his university exams now.

There will be no more Avastin infusion till 15 May 2013 and we still have time to stop it. Before that Avastin infusion, she needs to have an MRI Head Scan first and see any improvement on the size of tumours. And if no improvement, then treatment with Avastin infusion will also stop.

Looking forward to see you soon, Dr. Chris Teo.I have been reading your website on newsletters and other material and you are a remarkable Doctor. Please reply. Regards.

 

Radiotherapy: Recurrence After three years

 

Temodal shrunk tumour but it grew bigger after that

 

She had Avastin And She died

 

At CA Care I am not god

7 May 2013  Dear Dr. Chris Teo,

Very sad to inform you that when I arrived in Australia early Sunday morning (5/5/13), my daughter has passed away. Terrible news for the family. Sincerely thanks. Regards.

Death by chemo is acceptable

 

Avastin Spreads Cancer and Makes It More Aggressive