Natural Cancer Cures: The Definitive Guide to Using Dietary Supplements to Fight and Prevent Cancer

Introduction

CAM Cancer Support

by Michael B. Schachter, M.D., C.N.S., F.A.C.A.M.

Among the most important decisions a cancer patient must make—in consultation with his physician or other health care practitioner—is whether to use conventional cancer treatments, which may include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, anti-hormonal therapy, and some of the newer monoclonal antibody treatments that target certain steps in the cancer process.

After evaluating his options, the patient must decide which treatments to undergo and how they might interface with alternative approaches to managing his disease. Under certain circumstances, after a careful evaluation of the risks and benefits of the specific conventional treatments being offered, the patient might decide that the benefits do not clearly outweigh the risks. He might decide to forego the conventional treatments, instead focusing his energy on an intensive, potentially less-toxic alternative approach.

The decision is complex and personal and requires the evaluation of many different factors relating to the person’s disease and to personal and cultural factors as well. At the Schachter Center for Complementary Medicine in Suffern, New York, our knowledgeable staff helps each patient evaluate treatment options to assist with making the best treatment choices.

In some cases, patients will decide not to use any chemotherapy or radiation therapy. When I discuss the pros and cons of these treatments, I point out that the purpose of using radiation or chemotherapy is to kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, both radiation and chemotherapy have negative qualities, which I also discuss.

They have four negative characteristics in common: (1) radiation and chemotherapy are mutagenic, which means that they cause mutations, and mutations in certain classes of genes relate to the development of cancer (for example, mutations in proto-oncogenes result in oncogenes and accelerated cancer cell growth, and mutations in tumor-suppressor genes result in the brakes that control the cellular growth failing, so that cancer cells can grow out of control); (2) they are both carcinogenic, which means both of them are capable of causing cancer, and their use is well known to increase the risk of developing secondary cancers after the initial treatment; (3) both of them are immune suppressive, which means they weaken the body’s own mechanisms of controlling cancer cell growth by damaging natural killer cells and other immune functions; and finally (4) they each have both acute and chronic adverse side effects, depending on which treatments are used. So, we commonly see loss of appetite, weight loss, diarrhea, pain, loss of hair, loss of red blood cells (anemia), low white blood cells, low platelets, neurological problems (pain or numbness in the extremities), fibrosis leading to impaired lung function and many others. Many chronic, long-term effects of these treatments have not been fully evaluated.

Conventional medicine has come up with a few articles recently suggesting that physicians need to become more aware of the inherent dangers in using diagnostic radiation. For example, a CT scan may expose a person to 100 times more radiation than a chest x-ray. Radiation exposure is cumulative, and one’s lifetime exposure to radiation increases risks of cancer, heart disease and a variety other medical problems. Even a mammography increases one’s risk of developing breast cancer, and it is believed that two mammography pictures of a breast may increase the breast cancer risk by 1 percent. This cumulative exposure quickly adds up over time.

Therapeutic radiotherapy for breast cancer exposes the patient to a much higher dose of radiation. A breast cancer patient may receive around 3,000 RADs over several weeks. This is routine for women who have had a lumpectomy. The cost of the treatment is approximately $45,000. But, there is little or no evidence that this procedure improves overall survival. The only benefit may be a reduced risk of local recurrence. Most breast cancer patients are not aware of these facts, and when confronted with the information, may opt for not doing radiation following lumpectomy. They instead may decide to undergo an intensive health-enhancing alternative program that selectively inhibits cancer cells but has no effect on, or instead nourishes, normal cells.

Another example in which the current recommended treatments may turn out to not be in the best interests of the patient is the treatment of prostate cancer. At the present time, men are usually screened with a blood test called the prostate specific antigen, or PSA. If it is slightly elevated or has increased significantly over the past year, the patient is referred to a urologist. Most often the urologist will recommend a prostate biopsy. What is ignored is the possibility that the very act of taking the prostate biopsy (often 12 or more snips of the prostate gland) may actually set up an inflammatory process that may contribute to prostatitis or even to the development of cancer.

If cancer is present, the possibility of increasing its spread as a result of the biopsy is ignored. The cancer patient is usually given three options, which are (1) a radical prostatectomy, (2) radiation (either as external beam radiation or the implantation of radioactive seeds), or (3) drugs that result in androgen deprivation. Each of these treatments is associated with significant short-term and long-term adverse effects, such as problems with urination, problems with sexual functioning and many others. But a careful evaluation of long-term survival statistics fails to show a clear-cut survival advantage with localized prostate cancer treatments and androgen-deprivation therapy. One possible exception relates to aggressive prostate cancer in young men. A few recent studies indicate that this group of prostate cancer patients may have improved survival with a radical prostatectomy. But, in the United States, the vast majority of cancer specialists recommend surgery or radiation for all prostate cancer patients.

Recently, the issues related to prostate cancer became clear to me as a result of my contacts with two patients. About three years ago, a 73-year-old gentleman consulted with me concerning possible prostate cancer, as evidenced by a high PSA of 17 (normal is less than 4). He first learned of an elevated PSA three years earlier when it was 5.5. Two years later it had jumped to 10, and six months after that it was 15. A month before his visit with me, it had increased to 17, and his urologist was pushing him to have a biopsy. His urologist indicated that he most likely had prostate cancer and that if this was confirmed with the biopsy, he would need radiation therapy. The urologist stated further that the patient would be dead in 18 months if he did not accept this recommendation.

This patient, whom I will call John, was still working full time and managing an auto dealership. When he visited with me, he expressed concern that a biopsy might spread cancer if it were present. He indicated that he did not want to do radiation therapy and wondered if he could undergo an intensive alternative cancer program instead to manage his likely prostate cancer. I agreed that this would be a reasonable plan. I ordered non-invasive imaging studies of his prostate (a Power Doppler and MRI), and both strongly suggested the likelihood of prostate cancer.

We set up a program involving changes in lifestyle that involved a fairly strict diet, intravenous vitamin C drips, amygdalin both orally and by IV infusion, a variety of nutritional supplements (including vitamin D, iodine, proteolytic enzymes, herbal supplements developed by Dr. Mirko Beljanski, therapeutic essential sugars, therapeutic oils and others). Low-dose Naltrexone was also prescribed. Our plan was to monitor him with physical examinations, PSA blood tests, and imaging studies (Power Doppler ultrasounds and MRIs) of his prostate.

At the time of the original evaluation, John had told me about his 77-year-old boss, Al, who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer by the same urologist. In contrast to John, Al accepted the urologist’s recommendation and had received 45 radiation treatments to his prostate. At the time, it appeared that Al might have developed liver metastases during or shortly after the radiation. A year or two later, John convinced Al to consult with us. We set up a treatment program, but after a brief period, Al rejected this complementary treatment program and simply followed the recommendations of his urologist and oncologist. Subsequently, John told me that Al was terminal.

During the past three years that John has followed our program, he has lost about 40 pounds (he was obese when he started). As of this writing, there is no evidence that his cancer has worsened. His PSA has remained either the same or lower, and his Power Doppler has remained the same or has improved. He says he has never felt better.

Although we have here only two cases, they raise all kinds of questions about diagnosing and managing prostate cancer. Might the very act of doing a prostate biopsy contribute to a poor outcome? How effective is conventional treatment in treating prostate cancer? Certainly in Al’s case, it was not at all effective and may have contributed to his poor outcome. Could a program that focuses on lifestyle changes, nutrition, nutritional supplements that selectively harm cancer cells, and other relatively nontoxic treatments result in better outcomes? John’s story suggests this may be true. A few conventionally trained physicians have also begun to view prostate cancer from this point of view. For example, conventionally trained urologist Ronald Wheeler, M.D., summarized a study he conducted in a poster presentation at the 2006 Prostate Cancer Symposium (Abstract 1115). The title of his presentation was Is it necessary to cure prostate cancer when it is possible? A review of a prospective study on diet and nutrition.

In this study, 23 men aged 43 to 74 with biopsy-proven, organ-confined prostate cancer consented to avoid traditional treatment in favor of a dietary and nutritionally based conservative protocol. The men received a Mediterranean Diet and nutritional supplements. The PSA was the primary indicator to validate exacerbation or suppression of disease. The primary Gleason score was 6, though some men had scores as high as 7. Over an average 36-month period (range from 12 to 72 months), 87 percent of the men noted an average 58 percent reduction in PSA, which was statistically significant. The remaining 13 percent, which consisted of three men, experienced a mild elevation in PSA of 0.3, 0.7 and 0.9 ng/ml over 14 months, 34 months and 42 months, respectively. The conclusion was that this prospective study demonstrated rather convincingly that some prostate cancers may be overtreated and that social change through dietary and nutritional modification may provide a safe and effective alternative approach to managing prostate cancer.

Yet, in some cases, we need conventional methods. For example, if a person comes to me with a diagnosis of colon cancer that was diagnosed by a colonoscopy, and wants to avoid surgery and instead do an intensive alternative program, I will strongly recommend surgery followed by the alternative program. In the case of colon cancer with no evidence of spread to vital organs, I believe surgery can be lifesaving and should be done.

In the case of colon cancer, conventional therapy should be done because of the survival statistics. On the other hand, I am not strongly impressed with the other conventional treatments that are often recommended along with surgery. These may include radiation and chemotherapy. We have several long-term survivors with colon cancer who have not done chemotherapy, even though there may have been some lymph node involvement at the time of surgery. I believe every case must be evaluated on its own merits from many different perspectives.

At the Schachter Center for Complementary Medicine, I work with some patients who choose conventional treatment and others who forgo it. For a number of kinds and stages of cancer, more and more patients I see have a keen interest in complementary medicine, and a surprisingly large number of mine actually choose to forgo conventional treatment completely.

The power of integrative medicine, or what is known as CAM (complementary alternative medicine), to enhance healing is relevant to both types of patients. Certainly, those who opt exclusively for the complementary or alternative or naturopathic modalities alone are aware that this approach can be very powerful. But, CAM modalities are also extremely important for patients who decide to use conventional treatments as well. CAM is extraordinarily important for amplifying healing, supporting immune health, enhancing the positive effects of the conventional treatments and reducing the adverse side effects. I find my patients who use conventional treatment do well when they combine other alternative methods of support that can range from nutrition, nutritional supplements, intravenous nutritional infusions, stress management (including meditation), exercise, and energy treatments, such as acupuncture.

At the Schachter Center, we make extensive use of clinically and scientifically validated nutritional supplements for our cancer patients. These are used mostly in conjunction with dietary recommendations (such as avoiding sugar, alcohol, tobacco, chemicals added to food and many others), infusions of selective nontoxic biological supplements like high-dose vitamin C, acupuncture, stress management, and an exercise program. A complete list of these recommendations can be found at www.schachtercenter.com by clicking on Literature and Articles and then the Avoid and To Do Lists.

According to our model, we use nutritional support and other modalities to improve normal physiologic functions to encourage the body to heal itself. With this approach, it is often impossible to determine which of the various products or treatment modalities are responsible for most of the healing. In general, the supplements and other modalities work as a team and are synergistic.

We always face challenges in the CAM field, as we are not well funded like the doctors who work with the big-money drugs from Big Pharma. We know that we must always attempt to meet the challenges we face and not overstate our knowledge.

WHAT IS SUCCESS IN CAM FOR CANCER PATIENTS?

What does it mean for our patients to succeed? Does it mean longevity? Does it mean improved quality of life? It depends on the patient’s condition. We think both an optimal quality of life, as well as a healthy, longer life, are often achievable.

What is our philosophy? What do we mean when we say we practice Integrative Medicine? Briefly, it means we integrate the best that conventional medicine has to offer along with the best, most effective alternative medicine therapies, which may include diet, nutrition, herbal supplements, acupuncture, and intravenous treatments, among others.

What do we mean by Complementary Medicine? It means that appropriate alternative therapies can enhance or complement many conventional therapies. If a pharmaceutical drug is the best