First of all, before I get any hate mail on this subject, let me point out that the title is a little tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually think your oncologist is crazy. I mean, they might be, but I wouldn't know. I've never met them.
I know eventually an oncologist will stumble upon my humble blog and get offended, so right up front, let me assure you that it's a joke.
I am writing this in a bit of a response to some super frustrating things I hear all the time from cancer patients. I don't want to be *that* person who butts in with an "Acktuallllly...." to every conversation which doesn't involve them. But, I just heard it this week and it drives me up the wall that people still say this kind of stuff AND it is perpetuated by doctors.
What did I hear that had my hackles up?
"My doctor says it's crazy to waste money on supplements. Essentially all you're doing is paying for expensive pee."
Deep breaths, Jenny. Deep breaths.
I don't know why this myth persists in our culture that only things created by labs can be effective, but I have a couple hunches.
First, I know some people think supplements aren't in a large enough dose to be effective.
Is my $15,000 a month Lynparza only creating "expensive pee" because it's in such a tiny pill form? Is my $8,000 a month Mvasi only creating "expensive pee?" (And yes, that is the price of each of my maintenance drugs. Thankfully, we have insurance.) A very small amount of a compound can be pretty effective.
A bigger concern for people, though, is that they think natural compounds just aren't effective in any dose.
I understand that concern. We don't have a cure for cancer. Many oncologists and researchers can tell you that we probably won't ever have a magic bullet for cancer, not because the drugs aren't potent but because cancer is so complex.
My Lynparza? It blocks a single biological process for cancer growth and survival. There are over twenty! Cancer is kind of like the CHOP area of Seattle, there's a whole process that got us there. (Oh man. I'm making so many enemies today. First it was the Yoko Ono comparison. Now it's oncologists and Seattle anarchists. Please don't hack me. You can keep your CHOP. I live in the Midwest.)
When we look at cancer this way, it becomes apparent that we need multiple avenues of defense. We have to get everything back in harmony. This can sometimes be done by changing diet and lifestyle choices, but once cancer is too far gone, those aren't enough. We need targeted treatments for each of the ways cancer thrives.
Sadly, we simply don't have targeted pharmaceutical treatments for everything yet.
But we have found countless natural substances which can inhibit some of these processes! Though they may not be as potent, they're also gentler.
And to prove this, we can look at how many current pharmaceutical drugs are actually derived from natural sources.
In Fundamentals of Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy, the authors define pharmacognosy as "the science of biogenic or nature-derived pharmaceuticals and poisons." Phytomedicine is just what it sounds like: phyto, which means plant, and medicine. I won't get into the specifics of it (That's my way of not having to explain a bunch of stuff I don't understand really well but still sounding like I'm smart.), but we know that many plants have medicinal properties.
Pharmaceuticals derived from plants include:
Taxol, a chemotherapy drug derived from the Pacific Yew
Vinblastine, derived from Madagascar Periwinkle
Etoposide, a semi-synthetic derived from the American Mandrake or Mayapple
Psoralen, derived from Cow Parsnip
These are all cancer drugs. This is only a very precursory search through my personal library, and I'm not even touching the mountains of phytomedicines used for other ailments.
Why do we somehow doubt that phytomedicines, nutraceuticals, and supplements are unhelpful and yet we know some of our most potent chemotherapeutics are directly derived from plants?
Now, don't get me wrong, you certainly can't go chow down on a Pacific Yew and think you'll cure yourself from cancer.
No, for real... Don't do that. I mean it. You'd kill yourself, look stupid, and I'd feel really guilty. Plus, your obituary would be awkward. Nobody wants an awkward obituary.
My point is not that we should attempt to kill cancer cells with these plants. I'm only trying to stress that yes, plant compounds have benefits in medicine and while we can't take on cancer killing through the highly varying levels of compounds in plants, we can potentially use phytomedicine to help block some of these pathways for cancer growth and survival. See the distinction?
Supplementing with curcumin does not give me expensive pee, it combats inflammation, encourages apoptosis, inhibits angiogenesis, and works on 12 of my most likely pathways for ovarian cancer to thrive.
Supplementing with DIM does not give me expensive pee, it regulates estrogen activity, induces apoptosis, induces liver metabolism, works on 5 of my most likely pathways for ovarian cancer, and helps to support my wonky p53 gene.
I suppose, though, those who make the "expensive pee" claim, are right in a way... correcting those pathways is priceless to a cancer patient.
So, when someone rolls their eyes about supplements and say we're desperate, they are both correct and, sadly, ignorant on the benefits of phytomedicine all at the same time.
Using supplements isn't a matter of whether you're crazy. It's a matter of whether you're educated.
...And there is quite a lot to learn.
❤
Photo by Angel Sinigersky on Unsplash
Comments