Allan



No worry - absolutely nothing personal - apart from the fact that your
approach "I have given up on the illusion of control in this life and just
try to enjoy the ride and hope whoever is driving has a plan for us all."



Seems to have many merits - avoiding stress and making the most of the most
precious things we have - limited time



But also - your justified challenges in the past - well they have made me
think and look closer - to seek out truth - and that also is appreciated.
Right now I am going through a similar challenge elsewhere - where someone
believed that an alternative approach was working for a loved one - but
others undermined it and she eventually caved into temptations for a high
youthful life and then the cancer came back. Part of the problem was that
other people in ignorance/prejuduce undermined her conviction that it was
the alternative approach that was working. Those others later became
converted, but by then it was sadly too late! To me the problem is knowing
which place one is working from. My own conviction does not mean I am right!
(which is partly why I invite challenges).



I also am aware that I am ignorant of alternative therapies.



But I do not agree about lack of evidence. Richard Wilson issues abstracts
and synopses - and I glance through frequently - those scientific studies do
show evidence - but unfortunately just relatively small statistical effects
arising from all sorts of things. And that is the quandary - why? I suspect
the answer lies in the fact that each of us has existed in such diverse
environments - each different - each under different biological, chemical,
psychological, etc stresses.



It seems to me that each of our bodies have experienced millions of
variables during our lives, and the consequences are that our bodies are
each uniquely evolved, damaged, distorted, influenced by those variables. I
have seen, through my father's own battle with terminal illness, just how
complex this really is.



But cancer is a disease coming from our own body cells. Some diseases are
bacterial or viral infections from outside - and therefore a 'cure-all'
medication works - it focuses on destroying those alien cells.



But because cancer is our own body cells, and possibly chaotic, it is
difficult to get a medication that destroys just the unwanted body cells -
the cancers - without also destroying our own bodies.



Now - speculatively - it seems that there is a genuine purpose and need in
triggering rapid cell growth - either maybe arising from fetal development
in the womb, or maybe in response to the need for an urgent repair job -
such as cuts and abrasions to the skin. Also speculatively, there is
something that tells our bodies how to align the positioning of various body
parts - so our livers do not grow in our legs, or our fingers on our noses,
or our skin cells in our lymph nodes and livers and lungs. I suspect these
are all DNA elements - but DNA does get damaged by the sun and also by
chemicals and others stressors.



But - and I do believe this to be fact as it has been confirmed to me by
several oncologists - our bodies do naturally both generate and clear up
malignant cancers throughout our lives. Something triggers our immune
systems to identify, and empowers our immune systems to destroy, rogue
cells.



But like any army, it is only effective if it is fed, is armed and is
motivated - and senses the right target and destroys it.



It seems to me, that if studies on papaya, pineapple, mint tea, etc etc show
small positive effects - 100% effects for those few who are effected - well
the problem is finding what will be 100% for one person - me or youu - and
in truth it could be any one of thousands of different variables - foods,
vitamins, or other 'triggers' that cause that one person's immune system to
become effective.



That is why I sense that a comprehensive, diverse approach embracing many
factors - is probably the best strategy



On a different plain - I keep koi carp in ponds and have done all my life.
What I observe is that we create artificial environments and over-populate
those environments. Then we try to maintain a balance through various
mechanical devices that add oxygen, biologically degrade waste, etc - plus
we dose with chemicals to clear parasitic, fungal and other problems of
disease. All the time mother nature is fighting back, changing parameters,
introducing new things - nothing is constant. And if you do not change the
maintenance of the environment, something starts to go wrong and often
spirals out of control. It is a matter of continuously tuning the balance -
maintaining that ecosystem. The same thing happens with the ecosystem within
our bodies - with external influences (infections etc), changes in diets,
weight, and possibly most of all aging - we each are facing different
challenges each day and need to adjust accordingly.



But as with keeping koi carp - what I have observed is that it is very
difficult to get exactly the right chemical balances - use of medical agents
is a challenge - as the environment within the pond affects the medical
agents and alters it impact on the fish. I suspect this is also true within
our bodies - apart from anything else, there is possibly a crude adjustment
for certain major factors such as body weight - and the rest is left to
chance.



But the really important messages I think are as follows:



-many highly refined and unnatural foods, fats, pesticides, chemicals, etc
do cause and encourage cancers to grow or recur



-many natural foods, distressing, avoiding cancer-inducing foods, sunshine,
exercise, proper hydration - do work for some people



-in those studies, for a few people, those natural agents were 100%
effective for some time



-once cancers have developed, the job may be too big for just the immune
system (unless we are young or incredibly healthy) and therefore it makes
sound sense to take the chemo, or other medical therapies.



-each of us may respond in a similar way. There is genuine HOPE. But the
problem is finding - to what?



-there is a tough decision that we each take - how much quality of life do
we forgo for uncertain hopes of quantity of life



-it is so important that loved ones and family positively support whatever
the choices that are made (as with any leadership position, the very worst
thing is having a constant political undermining of one's stance - it
demotivates, deflates, stresses and often causes failure)



-life is about enjoyment, not imprisonment - it is about colour, adventure,
love, living - and that should never be forgotten - Allan - your
example/leadership in that direction is appreciated



Love and Healing



Ian



PS I have copied in other groups - as I think this is one of the most
important debates for us - and I welcome feedback/critique



_____

From: melanoma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:melanoma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of rodensir
Sent: 11 June 2007 23:57
To: melanoma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [melanoma] Re: side effects



Ian I meant nothing in fact I was giving you credit.
I was just trying to explain the statical aspect of interferon nothing
more or less. The reference to you was just acknowledgment of your
efforts to find new ways of "tipping the balance in your favor".
Interfon may do that for some people however there is a debate if the
price is worth it. (I have a friend that would argue against it as it
caused him to need a pacemaker yet know people that swear it saved
their life so go figure)
Referring to diet I still think some of it is personal opinion and the
evidence I have seen has not made me a convert to diet being a cure
all as of yet and I read most of the same stuff you do but I do see
points. The Gerson diet is a pet peeve of mine as I think it has done
more harm than good for people over the years and taken good research
dollars away from real projects. But then I trust Quackwatch and
evidence I see look like many of the Gerson claims are overdone.
Maybe there is a slight benefit but the claims seem overblown to me.
The Vit D and calcium study published last week supports some of your
approach. However I was never short on Vit D and I am not a
"Pre-menopausal" women so it has little impact for me. But it does
show the goodness of eating a balanced diet which I did before cancer
and still do. But I eat more meat than before, about the same
vegetables but developed a good appreciation for wine, whiskey and
cheese.

But then I have given up on the illusion of control in this life and
just try to enjoy the ride and hope whoever is driving has a plan for
us all.
Allan

--- In melanoma@yahoogroup <mailto:melanoma%40yahoogroups.com> s.com, Ian
Dixon <iandixon25lr@...> wrote:
>
> Allan
>
>
>
> Mostly what you say is correct - but there is evidence that so many
things
> do have a statistical impact - favourably - albeit a small statistical
> impact
>
>
>
> I do not know whether you subscribe to the group MM-research, but
Richard
> issues synopses of studies and also abstracts. Incredibly there are
so many
> fruits or vegetables that make just a small difference - I question
- why?
>
>
>
> The Bristol and Gerson diets also are founded on bits of evidence.
Clearly
> overweight, eating lots of fatty things - is proven in studies to
increase
> chances of recurrence and cause earlier recurrence to take place.
>
>
>
> From my discussions with senior oncologists, there is a strong
belief in the
> powers of the immune system - but there is also a huge amount of
skeptical
> training - mostly caused by previous actions of those who get rich
quick by
> making false claims knowingly. There is also a reluctance (albeit
> decreasing) to speak out aloud about how diet and the immune system does
> impact on people with MM.
>
>
>
> My Prof - Dalgleish, recently co-authored a paper on someone who
went NED
> purely by combining diet, anti-oxidents and eating pineapple cores.
They do
> not know why - but they do know that such events are so rare that
they have
> investigated what that person did and then placed it on record.
>
>
>
> Most of what I say is 'good sense' and logical - some, such as
sunshine, is
> clearly a personal punt - a gamble - but for someone who is stage 4
and told
> 'you will die of this' -it was one worth taking. Maybe it is the one
which
> has paid off?
>
>
>
> My background was basically science - so I do not believe in 'luck'
- but in
> cause and effect.
>
>
>
> I cannot state clearly that the combination of standard and mostly
> ineffective medicines and complementary therapies (diet, stress
reduction
> through meditation, etc) definitely IS the reason for my unusual
response -
> because there might just be another obscure reason - such as maybe I
have
> some peculiar DNA? But until they do find out why to such questions
- then
> it seems sensible to me that people in the same situation should at
least
> carefully look at what has been successful in the past - plus
discuss these
> with an open mind with their oncologists. To me, at the very worst,
such an
> approach gives hope and a more enjoyable time on this planet - at
best, for
> some - maybe a similar response.
>
>
>
> Allan - you changed lifestyle radically - had a great deal more time
> outdoors (sunshine? Melatonin from being outside?) and maybe with more
> exercise - and maybe these things all have made a huge difference to
delay
> recurrence - who knows?
>
>
>
> I do not believe I will ever be cancer free - it is there - inside -
just
> waiting for my immune system to become depressed, stressed or
undermined by
> illness. I do believe in immunology now, but would advise following
> oncological advice as I did and I took the chemo.
>
>
>
> When I was diagnosed - I was in a different place - and to be frank
- I was
> very dismissive of much of what I now believe in - that dismissal was
> prejudice on my part at that time and based upon a lack of any
research or
> investigation. When one of the top melanoma oncologists in the UK
told me
> 'there is nothing you can do' - I challenged him but was stunned when he
> said 'eat healthily'. I was even more stunned when I asked him what that
> meant and he said 'eat slightly less meat'.
>
>
>
> I have done a huge amount of research and reading - and have listened to
> others who come from cancer or nursing or indeed are oncologists - many
> informal discussions.
>
>
>
> Why did pineapple cores and antioxidants impact on that one person
in such a
> dramatic way? Maybe because her immune system was malnourished in a
certain
> way and therefore was ineffective. Someone else may not respond, but
their
> immune system may be malnourished in a different way - and they may
respond
> to something else. I have personally ensured a wide diversity of natural
> foods - ensure proper nourishment - ensured that so-called healing
foods are
> included (a safe and cheap punt) substituted a variety of herbal
teas for
> the immune depressing coffee and tea, taken sunshine in moderation,
removed
> stress and released the emotional trauma of cancer with meditation - it
> encompasses a whole range of complementary therapy - changed my life
> radically - and have survived.
>
>
>
> For me there is enough proof but it is widely scattered - I was hugely
> skeptical but I am now, as is evident above, a 'convert'
>
>
>
> So yes - so many studies have found that a few have unexpectedly drawn a
> further ace by each of these actions - not a 'cure-all' - but a sensible
> strategy encompasses all
>
>
> Healing - keep up the adventures - and let us know when the next
book is out
>
>
>
> :-)
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: melanoma@yahoogroup <mailto:melanoma%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
[mailto:melanoma@yahoogroup <mailto:melanoma%40yahoogroups.com> s.com] On
Behalf
> Of Allan Roden
> Sent: 11 June 2007 15:44
> To: melanoma@yahoogroup <mailto:melanoma%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
> Subject: Re: [melanoma] side effects
>
>
>
> Couple of points.
> I believe Ian did low dose IL2 not interferon.
> 2) In studies low dose Interferon did not do better than just
observation
> and this has been studied in other words on average low dose is no
better
> than just observation some do well and some do not in both groups.
In fact
> high dose makes no difference in 5 year survival for stage 3 people
(that is
> why it is not the "Standard of Care" in the US but just an "approved
> treatment") although it does extend recurrence free time by more
than year
> on average. What that means is on average if you do Interferon you will
> most likely have a longer period time before the first recurrence than
> someone who did not do it but on average both group have the same
survival
> rate at 5 years. So for one person taking interferon is a choice with
> medical advances that extra year before your next recurrence is good
deal or
> for family reason, or personal reasons. However you may still recur
in just
> 3 months. I have friends that recurred while still on interferon. Like
> cutting cards you know odds of an ace is 4/52 but sometimes someone
will cut
> that ace.
>
> Ian believes he can slide extra aces in the deck and tip the balance
just a
> little in his favor. Maybe he is right but in the end when there is no
> evidence there is no evidence and one person does not make a study.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "shenanigans@..." <shenanigans@...>
> To: melanoma@yahoogroup <mailto:melanoma%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:58:06 AM
> Subject: [melanoma] side effects
>
> But it worked on Ian. Susie
>
> Please email us at:
> Shenanigans@ <mailto:Shenanigans@...> att.net.
> www.shenaniganSharp <http://www.shenanig
<http://www.shenaniganSharpei.com> anSharpei.com> ei.com
> 843 851 2730
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: will wright <mailto:wilvetvw@...>
>
> To: melanoma@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:melanoma@yahoogroup
<mailto:melanoma%40yahoogroups.com> s.com>
>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:57 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [melanoma] side effects
>
>
>
> low dose interferon is used on humans and has been studied. the
results are
> not favorable. it doens't show to be much better than observation
> alone.Velvet
>
> shenanigans@ att.net <mailto:shenanigans@...> wrote:
>
> Still wondering why every day, small dose, Interferon is working on
cats and
> dogs and not tried on people. Susie
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]