Terry Thompson’s Blog

Last year, a government task force proclaimed that women didn’t need mammograms until they were past forty.  Then the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists announced that women in their 20’s no longer need annual pap smears.  They said once every two years was enough.  Now, the American Cancer Society has just urged doctors to help men understand the limitations of prostate screening and that they could cause more harm than good. Is cancer screening going the way of polio vaccination? 

The ACS message is that both the PSA blood test and the digital exam for signs of prostate cancer can give false indications.  According to them, the PSA can show high numbers that indicate possible cancer when there is another problem causing the indication.  Further, the digital exam can produce the appearance of cancer when the patient doesn’t actually have cancer.  The thought is that treatment and its side effects resulting from a false diagnosis for prostate cancer is of greater concern in some cases than occasionally missing a diagnosis. 

I don’t really have a valid answer for why institutionalized medicine is trending away from their previously adamant position of more is better when it comes to screening.  My skeptical mind wonders whether the growing pressure to lower medical costs universally has somewhat influenced the reduced testing recommendations.  I can imaging doctors and researchers thinking that, since they are under scrutiny for cutting costs, all these tests may not be necessary.  I agree wholly that medical costs need to be cut in many areas.  I’m just not sure that screening for any type of cancer is the best place to look for cost savings.  The insurance industry has tremendous lobbying power and may be influencing this movement, also.

I do know this.  Cancer is one of the worst health enemies we face today.  It kills over 1500 people in America each and every day.  Each of us needs to try to avoid it at all costs.  Therefore, I want to be tested for potential prostate cancer at every opportunity taking advantage of every method.  And, I want my wife to have mammograms and pap smears as often as possible.  The same goes for all of my kids, family members, and close friends.  We are probably at a point where we will have to insist that our doctors test us for these and other cancers to the maximum extent within reason.  Likewise, if we are diagnosed with cancer, we should insist that our oncologist provide complementary treatments to the maximum extent within reason.  Or, we should find an oncologist who will. 

The loss of my wife of 33 years to cancer in 2001 was the heart-rending catalyst for my book project, A New Strategy for the War on Cancer.  The next major incentive that keeps me in aggressive pursuit of publishing the book and advocating the subject is the never-ending series of friends and family that are diagnosed with the disease month after month.  Just last week, another close friend, a gentle, loving lady whom I have known for years, was told she has stage 4 cancer.  Her husband, one of my best friends and weekly breakfast prayer partner, has had many conversations with me in times past about complementary cancer therapies.   We have discussed my upcoming book numerous times. 

Upon sharing the bad news with me, he mentioned that he had already checked on options for connecting with an integrative oncologist.  He already understood the scarcity of integrative oncology practitioners and clinics, but was discouraged to learn just how difficult it would be to obtain such care.  He learned first hand that the closest medical center that specialized in natural therapies complementary to his wife’s conventional therapies would require a drive of over 250 miles each way.   He was also told that he would probably have to spend tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for the complementary therapies that insurance companies would not cover.  He was somewhat aware of the challenges he would face in attempting to incorporate complementary therapies into his wife’s treatment regimen, but was not expecting it to be almost an impossibility.  I knew what he would be facing, but I still agonize over loved ones who understand the benefits of complementary therapies, but are unable to obtain them.

Awareness of and access to integrative oncologists will not improve until there is wide-spread demand from patients and potential patients for many more doctors and medical institutions to practice complementary therapies.  As always, I urge my readers to support the movement of integrative oncology.  Support the research for better complementary therapies.  Give to integrative oncology research foundations.  Ask conventional treatment doctors about it.  Make it a long-term educational journey.  We must pursue a new strategy for the war on cancer. 

Homeopathy has been practiced for centuries as a curative process for all kinds of diseases.  Today, it is widely used in other countries, but has been only on the periphery of acceptability in the U. S.  The National Cancer Institute defines homeopathy as: A method of treating disease with small amounts of remedies that, in large amounts in healthy people, produce symptoms similar to those being treated. Homeopathy seeks to stimulate the body’s defense mechanisms and processes so as to prevent or treat illness.  In other words, homeopathic practitioners infuse harmless amounts of various compounds into the patient that will make the body react in ways it reacts to the disease, but more aggressively.  This stimulates the immune system to produce more and stronger antibodies to fight the original disease. 

In recent years, most medical scientists have denounced homeopathy as quackery.  Having hardly any opportunities for development within mainstream medicine, research and practice has been relegated to kitchen laboratories and back offices of natural food stores.  However, increasing evidence of the efficacy of the practice is beginning to stir renewed interest in unexpected places.

According to Ralph Moss’ latest Cancer Decisions newsletter, The February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology reported that the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center has found that four homeopathic remedies can induce cancer cell death in breast cancer tumors.  This news came out of the Integrative Medicine Program, the Department of Molecular Pathology, and the Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology at the Center.  The effects of two of the remedies appear similar to the activity of Taxol, the most commonly used chemotherapy drug for breast cancer.  The four remedies are typically used in India to treat breast cancer.

The biggest problem with relying solely on conventional medical science’s drug testing for an answer to cancer is that this testing always assumes certain parameters of dogmatic “facts” that prejudge the possible outcomes.  If any theory doesn’t fit within preconceived outcomes, it doesn’t get a seat at the table of modern medical science.  Homeopathy has not had that advantage of legitimacy, and has more or less been sidelined from consideration for cancer therapy possibilities.  Now that M. D. Anderson, the top cancer center in America, has come out with a study that gives credence to the age-old practice, conventional cancer treatment researchers and practitioners have some re-thinking to do.

Just one study, even from such a prestigious institution, is not going to change conventional medicine overnight, but it is exciting to see more and more of these revelation bringing legitimacy to a new strategy for the war on cancer.