Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
When considering natural therapies for breast cancer, it’s important to understand what medical or research-based evidence exists that shows which natural therapies are effective and for what circumstances.
While there are many claims made on packages and the Internet about herbal formulas, special diets or new-fangled technologies, the evidence for natural therapies that work to cure breast cancer on their own is paltry, at best.
However, natural medicine truly shines in supporting oncology patients so they have the best results through surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.
The options to reduce adverse effects, improve outcomes, and help cancer patients feel well are diverse.
When used in this way, the goal of natural medicine is to support conventional treatment approaches without interfering with its effectiveness, and to address concerns as they arise. Natural treatments are tailored for each individual set of circumstances.
Here are some examples of my favorite approaches.
Glutamine is an amino acid (protein building block) that in high doses helps to improve recovery from surgery and helps prevent nausea, ulcerative lesions in the mouth and digestive tract, and neurological toxicity from some chemotherapy drugs.
Ginger is an excellent and safe way for chemotherapy patients to prevent nausea. Using capsules, liquid herbal extracts or even lollipops made by a compounding pharmacist are options that support easy compliance for the patient.
Doxirubicin is a common chemotherapy drug that is used to treat breast cancer. However, one of the most serious adverse effects of doxirubicin is toxicity to the heart. Coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine are nutritional supplements that have been shown in medical research to reduce doxirubicin-related heart damage without interfering with the drug’s ability to kill breast cancer cells.
Another common concern for oncology patients is maintaining their immune function and white blood cell status.
Some approaches that are promising in this area include maitake mushroom extracts, ginseng (a popular Asian herb), ashwaganda (an herb from India) and then vitamin E supplementation.
It is clear that natural therapies have a supportive role in cancer treatment.
But if not used wisely, natural medicine can have negative effects.
For example, studies show that the herb curcumin (turmeric) can decrease the cell-killing effects of some chemotherapy drugs such as cyclophosphamide and doxirubicin (both are used in breast cancer treatment).
Other dietary supplements that may reduce chemotherapy effectiveness include coenzyme Q10, glutathione and cysteine. The most effective and safest way of using natural therapies is to consult with your oncologist and work with a qualified professional.
Richard Malik is a naturopathic doctor with a practice in Lakeville offering comprehensive health care for the entire family.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.