My mother died of Cholangiocarcinoma. This is a very uncommon cancer of the bile duct. I have since that day, started this site. Not until today did I look up Cholangiocarcinoma specifically. What I just found astounds me… Was Mom taking a trial drug? A drug that wasn’t even approved by the FDA? She was very private with her medical records, so she very well could have been.
I have located a non-profit organization dedicated to that type of cancer and this was a nice thing to find. I immediately turned to their research page. On that page they’ve host another site’s information: Clinicaltrials.gov. They had already entered “Cholangiocarcinoma” in the search box and there was a list displayed. I scrolled through and found an interesting headline:
My mother had inoperable Cholangiocarcinoma. It would have been operable if the doctor that saw a mass on a scan for lower back pain had ordered further testing. To be fair, it could have been her idea or the doctor’s to ignore the scan. I do not know. I saw the results of that scan sitting out on my mother’s dresser one day about six months before her diagnosis. It said something about someone’s liver but didn’t have a name, so I asked her whose it was. She told me it was just a “hemangioma,” or bundle of blood vessels in her liver. That’s when I told her to get off the cholesterol medicine she was on, because I had heard from my M.D. professor in physiology while at CSUN, that it was bad for your liver. She never did get off of it until I printed out a study that showed it can double the growth rate of certain tumors and delivered it directly to her primary care physician.
The term mentioned in the clinical trial above, Biological Treatment, sounded immediately familiar to me. Shortly after getting engaged in 2009, she pulled me into her room to tell me that she was starting a new treatment. A “biological agent,” she called it. This biological agent would deny oxygen to her tumor and cause it to shrink. At least that was the hope. She told me that she was doing it for me so she could be there for my wedding. She was convinced that she would not otherwise be at my wedding, which was maybe (I have to guess because I do not have legal access to her medical records and neither does her widower husband) six to nine months before the wedding.
I can only assume this viewpoint was coming from her doctor because she had been told she had less than six months to live before. She was told that by a doctor who wasn’t asked at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, FL on a visit that I attended. That happened in mid 2006 just after her first diagnosis. After that second opinion and yet another one in Texas, she decided to try nutritional and supplemental therapies, only to later be scared out of continuing them.
After 7 – 12 months of nutritional and supplemental therapy in the year of 2006 she decided to go on chemo for the first time. This decision upset me greatly because during which time, her 4 small tumors had disappeared from scans. When I questioned the doctor at one visit, he said they needed to order smaller resections for the smaller tumors to show up. On the next visit, when he had ordered the smaller sectioning and those 4 tumors still didn’t show up, he said the radiologist may have decided not to include them in his report because only the large tumor was of any concern to them. At that time her large tumor had shrunk too, by yet another 1/2 cm in diameter, but her doctor attributed this to the fact that it was about to implode in on itself and metastasize (spread). This visit was not long before she started the chemo for the first time and gave up the supplements and much of the nutritional diet. In fact, she was instructed NOT to eat any raw fruit or vegetables because she would be immunocompromised and they might have parasites or bacteria on them that she would no longer be able to fight off. I take extreme issue with this of course. How was her body going to use the medicine if it didn’t have the proper nutrients it needed to carry out simple metabolic reactions? Even a lowly undergraduate like me knows that if you don’t have even a single nutrient, certain reactions just don’t happen and chemicals, nutrients, and metabolites just float around unused in the blood.
At the time of the conversation about her new treatment in 2009, she had already stopped chemo because it had made her so ill. The chemo made her not want to eat of course and my offer to try to get her some cannabis, which has proven anti-nausea, anti-tumor, and pain killing benefits, was rejected with the phrase “We have too much to lose.” She did not want to get caught and negatively affect her husband or his retirement and health benefits. Finally, after giving her the strongest prescription he had to stop an even worse symptom (that cannabis also has been known to help) with absolutely no success, her doctor suggested it could be the chemo and took her off. Two days later the horrible side effect was gone.
She had felt better since being off of the chemo, but the doctors weren’t concerned as much with how she was feeling as the results of her tests. The CT had shown another increase in “activity,” of the tumor and “activity” was bad. This angers me. Her “activity,” had increased with the natural therapy too (inside the tumor) but all of her other blood work and scans had improved. Their view seems so narrow it makes me sick. The doctor assumed this activity meant it would grow, even though on the nutritional therapy the activity was increasing inside the tumor while it was shrinking and others disappeared. From my pre-med education, I understand that a CT scan is a combination of a radioactive isotope (they call it dye, but that’s not what it is) and a special machine to take pictures of where that isotope goes. The radioactivity causes the isotope to light up on a scan. The way that the mainstream medical society gets the isotope to go the tumor is by attaching it to a sugar molecule. The sugar molecule is what draws the “die,” into the abnormal cells creating activity that lights up bright white. Yes, sugar feeds cancer and the science of this scans themselves can tell you that. Doctors disregard that though, and vegetables are the enemy, not sugar in the mainstream “standard of care.” How ironic the doctors who interpret these scans and treat these diseases don’t connect that idea? Are they that dense, choosing not to connect it (cognitive dissonance), or so afraid they will lose their license that they keep their mouths shut?
What if the “activity,” was a different kind of activity? What if it was showing her body’s immune response to the isotope? What if the very thing they are trying to kill off with chemotherapy and biological agents isn’t inside the tumor? What if it is her immune system’s reaction to the sugar in the tumor that makes the scan light up and the presence of “activity,” is exactly what her body needs to heal? Nevertheless, she had total faith in her doctor. If activity was bad, it was bad. That was that.
So there we were in 2009. She had a break from the chemo, started to feel better and simultaneously (surprise) her “activity” was increasing again. This “activity” was considered to be attributed to a conventional treatment deficiency allowing the cancer to grow (independent of the size of the tumor/s) and the biological agent was their next move.
Upon discovering this clinical trial only moments ago, I cannot say for sure it is the same trial my mother was on. I don’t believe she was combining this drug with chemo. I can only imagine the side effects the people taking both types of drugs must have. What I am fairly certain of, is that the name of the biological agent listed on this trial is the same one she took. My mother handed me the package insert when she started this medication. I read it. I read all the side effects. I saw the name. Yes, that trial has at least one of the medications my mother was on.
The drug had some horrible effects. The worst one of all was how it caused her tumor to do exactly what the doctor was afraid it would do on the nutritional therapy. This effect ultimately led to her death. The tumor imploded in on itself and spread, but this time from swiss cheese like holes that formed from hypoxia (lack of oxygen). Hypoxia of the tumor was the main goal of this drug. Of course it also caused hypoxia for the rest of her body. She couldn’t walk across the room without gasping for air. Yes, it was obvious once the drug was in her system. This is also ironic to me because many alternative therapies call for more oxygen to prevent and treat cancer, in response to the research of Nobel Prize winner Otto Warburg who suggested that cancer thrives in a low oxygen environment.
She had received the information about the massive spreading of the tumor sometime in mid to late 2010 but hadn’t told me yet, as my family was about to move to south Florida. The doctors saw this as the end of hope and she was off of the medication for a bit of time before she suddenly took a turn for the worst. There are signs. Telltale signs that the cancer is throughout the body. Soon after the news of the swiss cheese effect that drug had on her liver, those signs began to appear.
I remember the day she died and although it hurts I will not let that memory pass. I will remember her and I will tell her story. Something is terribly wrong with our medical system and I want to change it. Perhaps medical research is something that should always remember to “do no harm.” Perhaps we should remember that natural treatments are not patentable and will never be profitable enough to call for the amount of research that patentable drugs get. This does not however exclude natural treatments from being effective, despite what the profitable research benefactors would like you to believe.
The very concept of sugar stimulating activity in cancer cells is used to find where cancer cells are for mainstream doctors every day, but how often do we read articles about the effects of sugar on cancer cells coming out of most research journals?
Eden Cultures wants to fund research like this; the type of research that won’t get funded by its own profits, the government, or the drug companies. The kind of research that could save lives in a humane way. The kind of research that could show just how affordable, attainable, sustainable, effective, and safe natural treatments can be.
Please buy our products and help us spread the word and we will give 5% of our yearly profits to a charitable cause that supports values like this.
Heather Davis – President, Eden Cultures