Fallacies Abound: Do natural treatments interfere with traditional chemotherapy and radiation?
We see it all the time. Cancer patients come to us from various renowned hospitals, and report to us that their doctors told them not to do any natural treatments because they can interfere with chemotherapy and radiation. Some patients actually hide the fact that they are doing natural treatments from their oncologists because the oncologists threaten not to treat them if they chose to incorporate such natural therapies into their treatment plan.
If ever there were fallacies circulating about natural medicine, this one would be at the top of the list.
Alternative Therapies science journal recently published two articles showing that since the 1970’s, 280 peer-reviewed studies, 50 of which were human studies involving 8,521 patients, have consistently shown that natural treatments containing antioxidants and other nutrients do not interfere with other therapeutic treatments, such as traditional chemo and radiation. (1), (2) In fact, not only do they not interfere, the research has shown that these natural treatments can actually enhance the therapeutic effects of other treatments, while decreasing side effects and protecting normal tissue. (1), (2) Furthermore, in 15 human studies, 3,738 patients who took natural treatments actually had increased survival times. (1), (2)
The joke, of course, is that the same oncologists who pontificate on the dangers of natural treatments also prescribe amifostine and dexrazoxane, 2 prescription antioxidants generally used during chemo and radiation treatments. Amifostine is owned by MedImmune and dexrazoxane (Zinecard) is owned by Pfizer. Both these pharmaceutical companies rank in the list of some of the largest (MedImmune reported $1.5 billion in revenue in 2005; it was bought by AstraZeneca for $15.6 billion in 2007. Pfizer reported $48 billion in revenue in 2007 and is consistently ranked in the top 7 biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world.). Traditional oncology has to get its story straight. Either natural treatments are bad, or, they are a huge support and provide major benefits for patients undergoing traditional chemo and radiation.
In our clinical experience, it’s the latter. But it only makes sense logically (and physiologically). Sufficient levels of antioxidants are needed for optimal health. (3) But the peer-reviewed research shows that chemo and radiation treatments greatly reduce the body’s antioxidant levels. (3),(4) So what happens when the oxidant-antioxidant equilibrium in the body is upset by traditional cancer drugs? For one, the lack of antioxidants can cause acute and long-term damage, including second cancers. (3),(4) This imbalance can also exacerbate conditions that existed before the cancer arose or can cause conditions to arise because of the cancer treatment itself. (3) As a result, according to Ellen F. Manzullo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, “‘the patient can do extremely well as far as their cancer is concerned but subsequently die of coronary artery disease or stroke.’” (5), (3)
Further, when it comes to tumor fighting ability, as a class, antioxidants improve blood flow, which promotes oxygenation of tissue and makes tumors more responsive to radiation. (3) And antioxidant treatments are just one of the many beneficial treatments offered to cancer patients by natural medicine.
Of course, when medicine is politicized (which it is), it’s the sick and dying who lose out. Too many cancer patients are deprived of effective treatment options because of the politics of the traditional medical system and the fallacies that have been created to line the pockets of major pharmaceutical corporations. Natural medicine is bad for business. It’s cheaper, and when done correctly, it’s astoundingly effective.
But is it really fair to blame traditional oncologists for discouraging patients from using natural medicine? In the 4 year medical school curriculum and in the 3 plus year oncology fellowship programs, the amount of time spent on natural medicine is negligible. Oncology students are lucky if they get two hours of training on the subject during their biochemistry class in their first year of medical school. In other words, they don’t know anything about it.
And what they are told about natural medicine is negative. In their defense, oncology students are told from the outset by their medical professors that natural medicine is synonymous with quackery. And not that their professors are completely wrong – there is a very real danger of patients being bamboozled by those individuals that prostitute our profession by selling ineffective and harmful products over the internet and other such mediums. But this is all the more reason for oncologists to learn the difference between legitimate and illegitimate natural medical practitioners and treatments, so as to advise patients. These doctors might be surprised to find out that not every natural medical practitioner is a “snake oil merchant.”
At some point, traditional oncologists have to be held accountable for not going beyond their preconceptions and prejudices and looking at what’s in front of them. They have to take the time to look at the published, peer-reviewed research that supports the effectiveness and benefits of advanced natural medicine. They have to be open to treatments that extend beyond what the pharmaceutical companies tell them to prescribe. They have to listen to their patients, who are demanding this medicine.
The last thing a cancer patient needs is an oncologist who threatens to withhold treatment if she elects to expand her treatment options. Cancer patients need support and unbiased guidance in their treatment decisions. Generally, patients are more objective and educated on the subject of advanced natural medicine than their doctors, simply because they haven’t been trained in the entrenched institutional bias that pervades the traditional medical system. Patients will research what works and bring it to their oncologists. And when they do, traditional oncology should be able to respond with knowledge about the subject matter instead of with invective and uninformed bias.
Of course, not all traditional oncologists are opposed to or ignorant about advanced natural medicine. In fact, Envita works with quite a few who believe strongly in its benefits and have witnessed its effects in the lives of their patients. But from an institutional standpoint, traditional oncology needs to reexamine its characterization of and approach towards advanced natural medicine. Patients’ quality of life and chances at survival hang in the balance.
Resource Links:
Pfizer’s Financial Report for 2007
Envita’s Life-Saving Info for Patients: How to Distinguish “Quackery” from Advanced Natural Medicine
References for this Post:
(1) Simone, C.B., et al. Antioxidants and Other Nutrients Do Not Interfere with Chemotherapy or Radiation Therapy and Can Increase Kill and Increase Survival, Part I. Alternative Therapies. 2007 Jan/Feb; 13(1): 22-28.
(2) Simone, C.B., et al. Antioxidants and Other Nutrients Do Not Interfere with Chemotherapy or Radiation Therapy and Can Increase Kill and Increase Survival, Part II. Alternative Therapies. 2007 Mar/Apr; 13(2): 40-47.
(3) Moss, Ralph. Do Antioxidants Interfere with Radiation Therapy for Cancer? Integrative Cancer Therapies. 2007; 6(3): 281-292.
(4) Koh E-S, Tran TH, Heydarian M, et al. A comparison of mantle versus involved-field radiotherapy for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: reduction in normal tissue dose and second cancer risk. Radiation Oncology. 2007; 2:13.
(5) Galloway, D. Treating patients with cancer requires looking beyond the tumor. OncoLog. 2004; 49: 7-8.
