Remission & Recurrence

First Do No Harm

"And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment." Mark 2:25-27

When I read the Scripture above, I used to think that perhaps the physicians this woman had seen were just crooks.  How was it possible to have been seeing "many" physicians for 12 years - exhausting all of her money - and yet not get any better, but to get worse?  Surely the physicians must have been taking advantage of her.

However, dealing with cancer shed new light on this for me.  I can honestly say that I think every physician I saw (and I had never seen so many different doctors in my life) wanted what was best for me; they desired to see me fully recover.  Yet, is it possible that the medical treatments and diagnostic tools they referred for me were doing more harm than good?

When I first felt the tumor in my breast, I went to the doctor to have it investigated.  Upon having the tumor verified via mammogram, I was told it should be biopsied to see if it was benign or malignant.  Of course I readily agreed!  My biopsy proved the tumor to be malignant and I was scheduled to have a lumpectomy within a month.  By the time I had the lumpectomy, my tumor had almost doubled in size.  I took this as evidence that the cancer was spreading very quickly and it made me even more thankful for the surgery.  However, I did not know that the biopsy itself could also make cancer spread/metastisize.  According to the American Cancer Society:

"In nearly all cases, surgery does not cause cancer to spread. There are some important exceptions, such as tumors in the eyes or testicles. Doctors who are experienced in taking biopsies of cancers and treating them with surgery know how to avoid the danger in these situations. The chances of a needle biopsy causing a cancer to spread are very low. In the past, larger needles were used for biopsies, and the chance of the cancer spreading was higher."

There have been reports of biopsies causing needle track seeding in various types of cancer.  I'll also mention that there has not been adequate study in this area to determine the true risks involved.  A few reports I read indicated that the need for such was not great because the "conventional" treatment of radiation could kill any rogue cancer cells that may have been spread or metasticized; the same radiation treatment mind you that is also known to cause cancer.  But what about those who do not have radiation?  I for one did not. 

In hindsight, I cannot help but wonder if the biopsy procedure itself had factored into the expedient growth of the tumor from the time of diagnosis until the lumpectomy surgery. 

I also did not know that chemo was in fact a poison; that its use as a treatment for cancer had been developed from a World War II program researching the use of mustard gas as an agent of war.  Due to the poisonous nature of chemo, the very chemo treatment they recommended for me was also known to cause cancer.

While I didn't pursue chemotherapy, I did partake in some monitoring which also posed cancer-causing risks.  Due to my diagnosis, it was suggested that I have mammograms 2 times a year, but I didn't know that the mammograms they indicated as being so necessary were also able to cause cancer.  And these were not just screening mammograms, but diagnostic mammograms.  According to the Federal Government's National Cancer Institute (NCI):

"Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is low, but repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer...A diagnostic mammogram can also be used to evaluate changes found during a screening mammogram or to view breast tissue when it is difficult to obtain a screening mammogram...Diagnostic mammography takes longer than screening mammography because more x-rays are needed to obtain views of the breast from several angles. The technician may magnify a suspicious area to produce a detailed picture that can help the doctor make an accurate diagnosis."

The diagnostic mammograms exposed me to increased levels of radiation for more prolonged periods of time.  I can remember technicians repeatedly attempting to get "good enough" screens of my breast as they brought in multiple technicians to ensure that the breast was flattened and turned in just the right way.  Of particular issue was the spot of my biopsy which, being on the side of my breast, did not always lend itself to easy screening.  I would spend hours at the imaging center as they twisted and turned my breast to try and get the best shots of that area; and that is exactly the spot where the breast cancer later returned and metasticized. 

Another type of test I would undergo is the positron emission tomography (PET) scan, which is a type of nuclear medicine imaging.  In a PET scan, radiactive material is injected, inhaled, or swallowed to allow areas of concern to be highlighted by the "gamma camera" and thereby identified by the radiologist.

I remember the first time I had this done and the technician came to me with a silver metal box covered with hazardous material and radioactive material stickers.  I looked at the technician and stated at that time, "That just doesn't seem right.  If this has to have all of these warning stickers on it, then should I really be putting this in my body?"  The technician simply smiled and explained that this was a common procedure and I should not worry as the amounts of radioactive material which would be put into my system was "low".  Yet, I have to admit that the image of that box of radioactive materials - and its warnings - stayed with me.  Further, although the levels of radiation were reportedly "low", I was also told after each test not to allow my small children to sit on/near me for 24 hours after the test.

The natural treatments I followed had conquered the cancer per the tumor markers and gotten rid of the tumor I chose not to remove via surgery.  Yet, there were many tests which I ignorantly underwent as part of the breast cancer protocols which were repeatedly exposing me to that which can cause or spread cancer.  I am personally of the view that such recurring exposures led to the recurrence of breast cancer I came to experience some years later.   

However, at a higher philosophical level, why do the majority of "conventional" treatments and monitoring techniques involve procedures that themselves cause cancer?  Can we fight cancer with cancer?   In pursuing a natural alternative to conventional approaches, how to montior my progress became a big question.  There are a number of options people shared with me, including the following:

Navarro Urine Cancer Test
Developed by renowned oncologist, the late Dr. Manuel D. Navarro, this urine test detects the presence of cancer cells even before signs or symptoms develop.

Digital Breast Thermography
Digital Infrared Imaging (DII) detects, analyzes, and produce high-resolution images of increases in regional surface temperatures of the breast, which may be among the earliest signs of breast cancer and/or a pre-cancerous state of the breast.

Cancer Profile Test
The Cancer Profile© is based on the premise that detectable biochemical changes occur in the human body during its transformation into a cancerous state. It is composed of 8 tests which, by themselves, might not be indicative enough, but together provide an impressive level of accuracy and precision. The CA Pofile© therefore may be used not only for early detection, but also clinical laboratory follow-up and monitoring disease reduction or progression.

I am not saying that the "conventional" tests mentioned here should not be used.  I provide this information so that - unlike myself - others can make these decisions with full knowledge of the potential benefits and risks.  Each person, with the advice of their medical professional, must seek the Lord for that which is best for them.  As with the woman who reached out to touch the hem of Jesus' garment, we must draw nigh to Him.  We can waste years of our lives and spend all of our resources with physicians trying to treat a disease that they are only able to make worse by the very protocols sanctioned in the industry itself.

I don't want to play a numbers game with my life, playing the odds that "benefits" of my treatments will outweight the "risks" of continued exposure to that which feeds my disease.  I trust that Jesus Christ is my Healer, and that He will guide me in deciding which treatments I should follow.  I know He is able to do the same for you.

Breast Cancer Cutaneous Metastasis at Core Needle Biopsy Site

The use of positive core wash cytology to estimate potential risk of needle tract seeding of breast cancer: directional vacuum-assisted biopsy versus automated core needle biopsy

Risk of needle tract seeding of breast cancer: cytological results derived from core wash material

Tumor seeding following stereotactic biopsy of brain metastases; Report of two cases
"The authors conclude that the risk for tumor seeding following a stereotactically guided biopsy may be higher than previously assumed."

Breast Cancer Unawareness Month: Rethinking Mammograms

Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer
Pay particular attention to the research & studies referenced at the end of the article.

Ionizing Radiation and Breast Cancer Risk