■プロフィール

くろちゃんのママ

Author:くろちゃんのママ
2011年3月11日東日本大震災の日に癌宣告(ステージ4)を受け、5月に直腸癌摘出手術、6月に転移した両肺の手術、7月から抗癌剤を当初の予定の8セッション受け12月末に終了。

2012年肺に再発があり11月中旬に摘出手術

2013年7月更に肺に再発、11月に右肺をラジオ波焼灼、12月に摘出手術

黒猫のくろちゃんと2人暮らし(=^・^=)

自分の経験や情報をシェアすれば何か役に立てるかも、と思い、最初の抗がん剤投与から1年たった2012年7月29日にBlogを書き始めました。

■最新記事
■最新コメント
■最新トラックバック
■月別アーカイブ
■カテゴリ
■検索フォーム

■RSSリンクの表示
■リンク
■ブロとも申請フォーム
■QRコード

QR

スポンサーサイト
上記の広告は1ヶ月以上更新のないブログに表示されています。
新しい記事を書く事で広告が消せます。


スポンサー広告 | --:--:--
抗がん剤と放射線治療
サイバーナイフを再考しようと思ったタイミングで
「抗がん剤と放射線治療が癌細胞をより悪化させる」という情報にあたった

癌細胞イメージ


癌は先進国における第2位の死因なのにもかかわらず、癌の治療法と癌そのものの知識はまだまだわからないことばかりだ。
標準的な癌治療法は、そもそも基本的に癌が”敵” だと勘違いしているところから始まっている。例えば抗がん剤や放射線治療は、本質的に発がん性のある治療方法であるのに抗がん剤や放射線治療を行う唯一の理由は、正常な細胞より癌細胞に対して細胞内にあるDNAを傷つけることができる可能性があるからである。(実際には必ずしもそうではないが)
しかし現実は治療による”巻き添え“は避けられない。しかも”もし”ではなく、”必ず”副作用は起きる。それはまるで現代の戦争での攻撃開始の決定は、どれだけ一般の人たちの巻き添えが容認されるかによって行われるのと同じだ。つまり治療・環境汚染・食品添加物などの評価は、毒性の危険性によってされるのではなく、人々の”危険性の許容範囲(なんと矛盾した表現)”が最優先で考えられているのだ。
抗がん剤はWHO(世界保健機構)で発がん性物質に認定されている

(途中抗がん剤のことは和訳省略、すみません時間がなくて)

放射線治療は乳がん治療で、がん細胞を縮小させている間に、放射線に耐性がある悪性腫瘍を選び出してしまう可能性が30倍高い。もちろんこれは、抗がん剤によってがん細胞が自ら変化しているのだ。ちなみに、乳がん予防のために低用量の放射線が含まれているX線を使ったマンモグラフィーをで診断しているが、これがおそらく乳がんの原因となっているだろうと考えられている。
医療用専門誌に、低用量のイオン化放射線は高用量の放射線に比べて3-4倍発がんの可能性が高いと書かれているのを読んだら、みなさん驚くだろうか。事実、癌と関係があると言われている最もよく知られたBRCA1/BRCA2と呼ばれている遺伝子を持っている人は、放射線でより発がんしやすい。つまり、治療や診断で使われる医療用の放射線をしない、というのが癌にならない一番の方法、と言えるのだ。

* 私の下手な意訳ですみません
下記 "続きを読む >>" ページに英文原本添付


Chemo and Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet we are still in the dark ages when it comes to treating and understanding it.

The colossal failure of conventional cancer treatments reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what cancer – the "enemy" – actually is. For one, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are both intrinsically carcinogenic treatments. The only justification for their use, in fact, is that they are highly effective at damaging the DNA within cells – with the hope that the cancer cells will be more susceptible to being harmed than the healthy ones (sadly, not always true).

The reality, however, is that the "collateral damage" from treatment is inevitable; it is not a matter of "if," but to what degree the damaging side effects will occur. As in real modern warfare, the decision to strike is often based on deciding how much collateral damage to "civilian" populations is deemed acceptable. This is not unlike the fixation in toxicological risk assessments for drugs, environmental pollutants, food additives, etc., where determining "an acceptable level of harm" (a rather horrible oxymoron) to the exposed population is the first order of business.

Chemo Agent Classified by the WHO as Carcinogenic
The DNA-damaging, or genotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, according to the prevailing wisdom, are the #1 cause of cancer initiation and promotion. This is known as the "Mutational Theory" of cancer, and has been the dominant explanation for half a century. Therefore it is absolutely disconcerting that the standard of care in cancer treatment today is still the use of genotoxic agents versus substances that are able to selectively harm the "bad" cells, leaving the "good" ones intact; which is also known as "selective cytotoxicty," and is a property characteristic of natural anti-cancer compounds and whole plant extracts. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the case of fruit-derived compounds, such as graviola, where research indicates that fruit extract may be up to 10,000 times more effective at killing certain cancer cells versus adriamycin (not so affectionately named the "red devil" for its lethal side effects) and is highly selective in which cells it kills.

Take the cancer drug tamoxifen, for example. It is classified by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society as a human carcinogen, and has been documented to cause over two dozen health-destroying side effects, and yet it is still being used as a first line treatment for certain types of breast cancer. Does that really make sense? Even if tamoxifen was effective (which increasingly it is not), does it really matter if it "cures" breast cancer only to cause endometrial or liver cancer (which is often far more deadly than breast cancer) as a direct result of the treatment? Tamoxifen and chemotherapy resistance is increasingly a problem. In the same way that certain pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – even becoming stronger after being challenged with them – drug resistance and multi-drug resistance to chemoagents is the canary in the coal mine, indicating the entire paradigm, hinged as it is on patented, highly toxic chemicals, is rearing to collapse.

Radiation Therapy Known To Cause Cancer & Enhance Malignancy
Similarly, radiotherapy is known to induce secondary cancers, along with a wide range of serious adverse effects. A woman whose breast is irradiated is more likely to develop lung cancer, for instance. But its effects may actually be far worse on the primary cancer it is being used to treat...

When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity. Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with greater potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth. There are also cancer stem cells, which are technically slower-replicating and therefore less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and yet which are responsible for re-seeding and fueling the growth of the tumor itself with a theoretical limitless resupply of daughter cells.

Radiotherapy has been shown to increase the survival and self-renewing capacity of these breast cancer initiating cells by up to 30-fold, which means that while a radiation treatment may initially regress a tumor's volume/mass, it may actually be selecting out the more radiation-resistant and aggressive subpopulation of tumor cells which ultimately lead to higher malignancy. This promotion of self-initiating cancer cells is also true for chemotherapy, of course. Incidentally, the low-dose radiation used to diagnose breast cancers in x-ray mammography is likely causing far more cancers in women over time than it is said to prevent. If you read the actual peer-reviewed medical literature on the subject you may be surprised to find that the low-dose ionizing radiation is actually far more carcinogenic (3-4 fold higher) than the high-dose radiation it is often compared to in radiation risk assessments. In fact, one of the most well known breast cancer associated genes, namely, BRCA1/BRCA2, confers greater susceptibility to radiation induced breast cancer in those who have it. In other words, staying away from medical radiation, diagnostic or therapeutic, may be essential to avoid the cancer it is being used to both "prevent" and "treat."

Cancer Resistance

Why Conventional Treatment Fails & Will Continue To Do So
The failure of chemotherapy can work in the same way. When you expose a diverse population of breast tumor cells to a highly toxic agent, a normal response is to become damaged to the point of dying. But cancer may not be a strict random mutation process, but an ancient survival program unmasked; that is, the cancer cell may be drawing from a far more ancient evolutionary and genetic "tool kit" which enables it to survive far harsher cellular environments, e.g. chemical exposure, low oxygen, higher availability of glucose/fructose, acidic pH, etc. and therefore the addition of highly toxic chemotherapy-type chemicals will selectively kill the weaker, and technically healthier (more benign) cells within a breast tumor, while creating the very conditions within which the malignant and more chemoresistant cancer cells may thrive. Multidrug-resistance genes and proteins are involved. When attacked by a chemical (xenobiotic) the cancer cell may "regress" and activate the genetic equipment that enables it to efficiently push out (efflux) the chemoagent being used, surviving, while its neighboring weaker (though technically more normal and healthier) cells die off.

Facebookより

関連記事

テーマ: - ジャンル:心と身体

サイバーナイフ | 08:47:16 | トラックバック(0) | コメント(0)
コメントの投稿

管理者にだけ表示を許可する

FC2Ad

上記広告は1ヶ月以上更新のないブログに表示されています。新しい記事を書くことで広告を消せます。