Close And Very Personal

This is very personal, but real and possibly of value to you.

About in mid-2003 Jean Ross, my wife, started having trouble swallowing.  The symptom was a sudden vomiting of food she had just tried to swallow.  The first time this happened it was sudden and very disconcerting.

It didn't happen again, for some weeks, but by the early part of 2004 it was becoming unpleasantly frequent.  Finally this was happening almost every meal.  She lost weight because of not being able to get the food down.  She could eat some things, strangely that included popcorn, and when she started trying it, she could drink a protein drink, with a raw egg mixed in.

We learned that an "endoscopic examination" was the usual thing -- she learned of the details and really didn't want to do that. 

The first thing she was willing to do was called an "upper GI."  She swallowed "barium" and had several X-Rays taken, in the area of the esophagus. They only saw a "narrowing" of the opening of the esophagus, but specifically missed the "mass" that was there.  Later a doctor explained this saying the barium had either already passed this part, or hadn't gotten there when they did the X-Ray in that area.  I don't think they were very competent.  But it is hard to be critical when you don't know what is happening.

But, when the swallowing got more difficult she decided it was the necessary thing to do.  I was remiss in not doing the research into this problem until about then, but that is when I started researching and publishing the several pages in this section -- starting with "endoscopy" and then concentrating on the "esophagus."

Without looking carefully at all the facts we both thought this might be one of those well-publicized "acid reflux" problems, and I initially concentrated my research on that subject.

But, she soon realized that when she vomited there was never any sour or bitter taste -- there was no stomach acid or bile.  The only thing that came up was what she had just tried to swallow.  Later a doctor told us that acid reflux could exist without any of the stomach acids or bile getting high enough up to taste it -- that the damage to the esophagus could be caused by acid-reflux even so.  The time of the endoscopy was fast approaching -- scheduled for February 13, 2004.

By the day before the endoscopy I had published most of the material you now find here -- I knew that a "mass" could be the problem causing closure of the esophagus, and thus preventing swallowing, but that seemed somehow remote, so I did not particularly research into that possible problem initially.

The endoscopy was done, and the immediate report was that there was a "mass" at the bottom of the esophagus, and that the doctor dilated the opening at the end of the esophagus -- he said that might give some immediate but temporary relief for swallowing.  It did not!

I knew that an endoscopy exam would normally include a "biopsy" of any mass found during the exam.  We asked the doctor if he could agree to do the endoscopy without doing any biopsy -- if we requested that.  He said he could, but seemed puzzled as to why we might want that.  I mentioned the dangers of metastasis if a biopsy is done of a mass that turns out to be cancer.  He didn't think that was any danger.

We then went to another doctor -- one we have used for 20 years and trust more than any other we knew.  He said that the type of biopsy done during an endoscopy was a "scraping" of the surface and that he thought this was quite safe.  He also suggested Jean start drinking Aloe Vera Gel every day and I suggested Jean start using our Germanium every day.  Germanium is an extremely powerful oxygen therapy.

She was afraid she couldn't swallow the Taheebo Capsules, and didn't like the idea of pulling the capsules apart and trying to drink some water with the contents of the capsule in them.  Later I arranged to get the concentrate part of our capsules and package them into tiny tablets that could be chewed, or held in the mouth, more like many homeopathic remedies.  The report on those is later on this page.

So, we accepted that the endoscopy doctor would do his normal procedure.

Since he found a mass he did go ahead and do his "biopsy."  He told me, afterwards, that he did two types of biopsy -- one was "scraping" and the other was like "picking" with a "pinch."  He assured me that there was no "needle biopsy" ever contemplated.

There is a very important point to realize here, now.  I strongly believe that any person has an absolute right to make decisions about their body without any control by another.  I might venture my opinion, even strong opinion, but my relationship with my wife is that I will support whatever decision she makes in the area of being responsibility for her own body.  Both of the photos along side were taken after we learned that there was a mass!

Since it was "Jean's swallowing" not mine, that was the problem, I knew that she would have a different viewpoint than I did.  She was much more willing to have the endoscopy than I liked, but then, it was her throat and not mine.

So, she went into the endoscopy with me doing all the research I could, telling her what I found, and accepting, without reservation, HER decision to move ahead.

The report of "mass" found was very upsetting to both of us.  I knew, immediately, that a "mass" was either cancer, or it was not.  Jean knew that also.

Jean immediately increased her dosage of Germanium -- taking about three full teaspoons per day -- about 5,000 mg.  That is a very large dosage, but from all the research I've done on Germanium I thought it would be the very best thing she could do, outside of surgery and standard chemo or radiation, to reduce that mass.  Germanium, in the loose powder form we have, is very easy to take.  It doesn't have any bad taste.   Jean would hold the Germanium in her mouth -- allow it to dissolve with a bit of water, be absorbed, and swallow some (mixed with saliva) so that it would trickle down the throat -- down the esophagus.  When you can apply Germanium very directly to an unwanted mass it is likely to be quite effective.

She continued with her Aloe Vera Gel, and took as many of our vitamins as she could swallow.

I immediately did much more research on cancer in the esophagus, or benign tumor in that area -- that is all published on this page, actually.  I knew that a biopsy result could be "estimated" by the doctor who did the procedure, in five minutes, "if he wanted to."  But, you would hardly ever get a doctor willing to report on HIS findings, rather the standard of care is that he prepares the biopsy sample and sends it to the specialized lab that does these tests.  I knew, also, that even though they COULD do the official test in a couple hours, they normally took several days.

This expected waiting time is one of the hardest parts of getting a biopsy.  You know that the doctor has taken the tissue sample.  You might even suspect that he or others know the results.  But, you also know that the doctors usually prefer to give you these results personally, not over a phone call, and that you then have to fit into his regular appointment openings. 

We understood that Jean would see her doctor the following Monday -- reasonably fast.  But, by Saturday we realized that the next Monday was President's Day, no office hours -- his next available time was the following Thursday, February 19th.  That was scheduled.  The doctor had also told us that he wanted Jean to get a CAT Scan, and we knew that the appointment for that was being "worked on."

The doctor's office called to say that the CAT Scan was now scheduled for the same Thursday we expected to see the doctor and get the results of the biopsy.  I might have protested more, but Jean was into getting the CAT scan done as soon as possible.  So, she asked if the doctor's nurse if he would please give her the results over the phone.  His nurse said he would call, he did, on Thursday morning.

This was now the sixth day after the procedure -- the sixth day after we had been told there was a "mass."  At the time of the endoscopy the doctor held up his fingers to estimate what he thought the size of the mass was -- about the size of a small golf ball!  The CAT Scan would give not only exact dimensions but exact position -- in anticipation of surgery to remove it.

You can imagine that the expected phone call was a time of gathering attention and concern.

The doctor called, and gave his report.

He said, "Whether or not there is cancer is inconclusive."  "There was," he said, "inflammation at the bottom of the esophagus, and that inflammation may have been the cause of what he saw as some irregularity in the cells."  Jean asked him if another biopsy was needed?  He said, "no, the CAT scan will tell us more."

So, we were certainly relived that there was no diagnosis of cancer, but worried about this "inconclusive" remark.

As I write these very words, Jean has had the CAT Scan, and it is now Friday, February 20, 2004.  We have an appointment to see the doctor on the next Monday.  He will, by then, have looked at the CAT scan results.

You notice the "we" throughout.  Over the past few years neither one of us has gone for a medical consultation without the other.  The doctor would not allow me actually inside a room where a medical procedure was taking place, but we both always saw the doctor, for either her situation, or mine, together.

In the meantime the "dilation" does not seem to have helped much -- Jean is still unable to swallow much -- vomits up the just-eaten food too often for comfort.  She can do OK with a protein drink, so she is getting basic nutrition.

I have been giving Jean "spiritual assists" according to the methods of our religion.  My religion suggests that you are an immortal spiritual being. You are not an animal but you do inhabit an animal body that limits your awareness, your intelligence, etc.  Does that indicate to you?  More information.

Just yesterday, February 19th, Jean had a sudden realization -- from something I had learned and from her looking and reviewing events.  Just several days earlier I was talking with an IV chelation MD I know and he mentioned that the first (only?) time he had a patient die, under his care, was when she started bleeding internally and he couldn't stop it -- it was from taking and using Naproxen (Aleve).

Jean has been taking Naproxen -- a prescription drug for pain relief from arthritis.  This is another of those actions I might have felt differently about, but she had lots of pain that led up to her knee surgery, and so did I leading up to my hip replacement.  We were both taking this Naproxen.  She had a prescription from her knee surgeon -- I was using the over-the-counter version.

She realized, yesterday, that the surgeon had warned her about Naproxen, emphatically, NOT to take it on an empty stomach.  Well, she did take it, usually, on an empty stomach.

She would take it in the morning "before" breakfast.  Breakfast usually followed by less than 30 minutes, but she certainly did violate the doctor's instructions.  Apparently the prescription papers from the drug store also warn the patient to take Naproxen only with food in the stomach.

We realized, too late, that these Naproxen tablets could well be getting stuck in her esophagus when she took them -- not enough stuff to cause vomiting, but leaving them to dissolve in an area where I had learned the tissues (of the esophagus) are much more delicate that the tissues in the stomach.  Thus, if she swallowed a Naproxen before breakfast, and if it never got into the stomach, but stuck at the end of the esophagus, these tablets could be causing considerable damage to the inner lining of the esophagus.  The tablet could dissolve, cause damage, and then be vomited up with food from breakfast, or perhaps some swallowed.  In any event she has not seen these tablets in the material that has been vomited up.  She also takes regular vitamins AT the breakfast table, with food, and these have often been among the material vomited up. The Naproxen was always taken "upstairs" before breakfast -- not WITH breakfast.

We now think that is what happened.  This damage could include causing the inflammation which the endoscopy found -- I think that this Naproxen may even have caused or contributed to the growth of that "mass."  If this is true, we have an immediate treatment:  "Stop using Naproxen!"  Jean has not yet done this.  She is now very careful to take this drug ONLY when there is food in the stomach.  That wouldn't mean "instant healing" but it should mean "instant elimination of the irritation of the tissues."

This is good news, of course, because it gives an explanation other than cancer for some of what the doctor found in the endoscopy.  The doctor may have known that Jean was taking Naproxen, but he certainly did NOT know that she was taking it on an empty stomach -- or he might have considered that the inflammation was caused by that, and even suggested some treatment for that problem rather than an "unexplained inflammation."

As soon as Jean thought of this, she discontinued taking Naproxen on an empty stomach.  She continues taking the large dose of Germanium, Aloe Vera Gel several times each day, takes as many Taheebo Capsules as she thinks she can swallow, and drinks about two protein drinks (each with a raw egg) per day.  Each of those drinks provides about 40 grams of protein -- 80 total.  You can survive quite well with about 60 grams of protein per day, so she may lose more weight just now, but she should be well nourished.  She takes some vitamins, but feels that they are likely to get caught in the throat.

I have quit taking Naproxen also.  I had quit using our herbal MSM for some reason and now have gone back to using that for my hip pain.  (I have a second hip replacement planned for sometime in the next few months.)

I end off my writing here, now, on Friday, February 20th.  I'll write more after we have seen the doctor, discussed the CAT Scans, and I plan also to write a report TO the doctor, from Jean, about the Naproxen. (I did not -- we told him, only.)  I want the doctor to have this possible explanation from us, in writing, so that he can't say we didn't tell him.

It is hard to show anger or disagreement with a doctor when we may have to put Jean's life in his hands if he recommends, and she accepts, a proposed surgery to remove that mass.  (I suppose this was the reason I decided, finally, to NOT give him a written report on the Naproxen -- it shows a lack of trust to insist that he read something.)  It turns out that he is NOT the doctor who does the surgery -- someone else.  But, the concept is still applicable.  You can feel angry about the "medical system" but when you are about to be lying on a gurney, mostly unconscious, with the doctor holding a knife over your belly, you may decide to be very polite while talking to him before!

Right now Jean feels that the surgery is probably necessary.  I, personally, may have been more willing to allow the Germanium longer to shrink that mass, but it is NOT my body -- I support her decision.  I give her data, my opinion only very gently, and accept her decisions.

Oh, Jean called the doctor's office to confirm the time for Monday's appointment.  It is often true that the nurses at a doctor's office are very casual about things that are extremely important to a patient.  The nurse, "innocently," asked Jean if, "Has the doctor scheduled your visit to the surgeon yet?"  (In fact, it turned out that the doctor's office was so sure of what were her next steps that they immediately requested insurance authorization for the next two specialists -- and had even started FAXing data to them -- without an actual appointment being made.)

That was a shock -- you don't expect to get a recommended treatment from the nurse, and we certainly wanted to hear a full story, not this comment that made it look like the matter was already decided.

I figured then, that the doctor really didn't care whether it was cancer or not cancer, he would recommend surgery anyway, and wanted to get us out of his time-slot visit as efficiently as he could -- so, on Monday we expect him to "announce" that Jean must have surgery -- no matter what the biopsy diagnosis is.

The problem with that is that IF there is cancer, then we need some further very vital information:

• How fast has this mass been growing?  Do we have time to use alternatives?

• Did the "scrape" biopsy make it now more urgent to do surgery?  Or, do we have time to use alternatives.

• Did HE have any alternative treatments that might shrink the mass?

• If they did the surgery, without knowing for certain whether or not it was cancer, would the surgery be any "different" than if they knew for certain?

• If they do surgery presumably they would then do a "big" biopsy on the mass.  How long would it be before we got the results?

• If it were cancer, would the surgery (and cutting into the mass) have made the next treatment, chemo or radiation, all the more urgent?

• What would be the expected recovery process?

We just couldn't imagine going ahead with surgery without having these and other questions asked and answered.  But, we did NOT get all these questions asked!

Since the doctor we were to visit was NOT the doctor to do a surgery, should we be asking THAT doctor these questions?

I felt that we had fallen into the "medical system" even though I felt, also, that I know a lot about it.  It seems that the entire medical system is designed to move you along on a conveyor belt into the next medical procedure, and the next insurance coverage.  There doesn't seem to be much room for personal opinion or decision.  These may be very valid conclusions, but the further you get into the medical system the much more likely you will become accepting of it -- there seems little alternative.

Many people feel that the "medical system" treats them as an object to be moved along.  With my more than 25 years of writing about this, I can tell you that it is very different when it is YOU on that conveyor belt.  I felt that I was protected by my knowledge and already-formed opinions on these matters.  When you ask a doctor for "help" you naturally feel that you have to accept the conditions in which he gives it.  The system has captured the doctor as much as his patients -- the conveyor belt!

If this can happen to US, what will happen to someone who has less knowledge of the medical system?

We have seen the doctor, heard about the CAT scan, and presented him with the data about the Naproxen.  The following was published less than three hours after visiting the doctor!

The most significant new information we received was the certainty of the diagnosis of cancer!

It was interesting how this came about.

On the phone this doctor had said that the biopsy was "inconclusive."  You have to learn what their "code language" is -- what these words mean to THEM.

Within a short time of arriving the doctor told us about the CAT scan results -- they were actually looking for signs of cancer in other parts of the body, but did come up with an exact size and location for the mass in the esophagus.  The mass is about 3.7 x 4.2 cm.  That is about 1 1/2 inches by 2 inches -- rather large.  The actual CAT Scan report, dry and cold is:

THERE IS A MASS AT THE GE JUNCTION EXTENDING ALONG THE LESSER CURVATURE OF THE STOMACH CONSISTENT WITH A NEOPLASM.

....

There is mass involving the medial wall of the proximal stomach and distal esophagus.  At the GE junction the mass measures up to 4.7 cm x 3.8 cm. The medial gastrie wall thickening extends along the lesser curvature.  No obvious ulcer is identified. There appear to be small lymph nodes around the celiac axis. These are of unknown significance. A small portaecaval lymph node is also seen. The abdomen is otherwise unremarkable.

Benign esophageal neoplasms are very rare. In a large autopsy study, there were 90 cases out of almost 20,000 autopsies, for a prevalence of 0.5%. Esophageal tumors may be classified as intraluminal, intramural or extramural. Benign tumors of the esophagus are more common in men than in women, and typically present after age 40. (Source)

He made remarks about the CAT scan, then went on to start "explaining" the term "inconclusive" by referencing that the biopsy sample was SO small that it was almost impossible to be absolutely certain about a cancer diagnosis, but he did say that there was virtually NO chance that a mass of this size, in this location, was anything other than cancer.

So, from the first examination, the endoscopy, and the report on the mass and estimate of the size, I feel he was quite certain that it was cancer, but for a variety of "polite and gentle" reasons he did not want to say that on the phone.  Apparently there is some tiny chance (probably less than 0.5%) that a mass this size is not cancer.  In any event he said that the only treatment that anyone would now suggest would be on the basis that it was cancer -- so he had already gotten the insurance authorization for the visit to the surgeon and the oncologist!

Esophageal cancer is devastating for the patient and family. The prognosis is poor, and dysphagia, regurgitation, and pain can profoundly diminish the patient's quality of life. However, survival rates are improving. About 35 years ago, only 1% of African American patients and 4% of white patients survived 5 years after diagnosis, compared with 9% of African Americans and 13% of whites today (1). Esophageal cancer is almost three times more common among African American men than white men, and it is three times more common among men than women. In 1998, the esophagus was one of the 10 leading sites causing cancer death among men (1). The American Cancer Society estimates that 11,900 patients died of the disease and 12,300 new cases occurred in 1998 (1). In addition to primary disease, the esophagus is occasionally the site of secondary metastasis or direct extension of tumors of the hilum of the lung. (source)

The doctor did NOT give us his opinion as the above quote.  Doctors do NOT like to deliver bad news so if you want the truth, you must ask or do alternative research.

You walk into the doctor's office with a great deal of hope, based on a small amount of data and a feeling that, "It can't happen to me!"  Then, in one brief comment the doctor dashes your hope with his reality.  I still think the "reality" is worth confronting.

However, as the tumor increases in size, patients begin to experience difficulty swallowing. Difficulty swallowing, the most common symptom, worsens as the tumor enlarges and begins to obstruct the normal flow of swallowed food. At first, one notices difficulties with meats, breads and fresh vegetables but as the cancer progresses, even liquids can become difficult to handle. Other problems associated with esophageal cancer are pain behind the breastbone and frequent, painful bouts of coughing or hiccups. In addition, weight loss and breath odor can be signs of an advancing esophageal malignancy. 

That is probably what you should expect if you ever follow this path -- endoscopy -- mass -- swallowing problems.

He told us lots of  other stuff, too.

I'll come to that, but the next most valuable advice I can give is this.  I suspect that doctors like this are increasingly receiving hostility from patients who have very negative opinions about the slash/burn/poison standard of care for cancer.  The hostility, if expressed, will turn his willingness off -- to give data of almost any kind.  The motto is probably, "give them the hard reality, but don't give them any data which might raise their hopes!"

So, when we left his office I made a deliberate point of turning to him, smiling, thanking him (sincerely) and shaking his hand.  I suspect that is unusual from a patient, or even more unusual from the spouse who may be angry at a doctor for such a diagnosis.

Several minutes later I went back to ask his nurse another question, he was there, and he seemed more friendly and more willing to give me data. The data was not more encouraging, but when you have had this diagnosis you are hungry for as much data as you can get.

During this visit I mentioned "Barrett's Esophagus" and that was MY code word to let him know that I had some somewhat specialized knowledge in this area.  You wouldn't want to appear haughty or superior, but using one of these specialized words probably helps establish that the doctor can be "straight" with you.

The normal esophagus (swallowing tube) is lined by a pinkish-white tissue called squamous epithelium. Some people also have red stomach tissue (normal columnar epithelium) present in the bottom part of the esophagus. Barrett's esophagus is a condition in which the normal squamous epithelium of the esophagus has been replaced by an abnormal red columnar epithelium called specialized intestinal metaplasia. Specialized intestinal metaplasia is red, like normal stomach tissue, but does not look like stomach tissue under the microscope. Therefore, a biopsy (a piece of tissue taken from the esophagus) is needed to diagnose Barrett's esophagus1-3. (Source)

When I asked if there were any evidence of "Barrett's Esophagus" it actually caused him to pause.  He said that was only detected from a special stain done of the tissue sample, and he didn't know (??) if that had been done.  I actually had him looking through the medical file to see if that test had been done.  It had NOT been done, but he then said that once there is a mass found it is no longer useful to look for Barrett's Esophagus -- that Barrett's Esophagus undoubtedly was there, much earlier, but by this time the "cancer" had become evident.

Barrett's Esophagus is a condition of the esophagus tissues that predicts cancer, but is not a sign of cancer in existence.  It is a sign that damage has been done to the esophagus, but not that cancer is yet present.  Since there is usually no pain or other symptom connected with Barrett's Esophagus, detection of it is usually accidental (if early) or too late.

I had learned earlier, I thought, that the dilation done during the endoscopy was not something you would then repeat much.  We learned, this day, that there is an expectation that the dilation does NOT result in much of an increase in the opening, or any permanence of that opening, the "first time" and that it was not unusual to schedule several dilations (with an endoscopy each time) to get larger and larger, and more a permanent opening.

So apparently the mass was the primary reason for the closure of the door at the end of the esophagus, not some failure of the sphincter muscle.  Pushing the mass outward, to increase the size of the opening, is apparently not all that useful when the mass is fairly large.  In any event, there is an option which "someone" could suggest, of a series of more dilations (certainly less invasive and dangerous than either surgery or radiation!).

He also described a "mesh" that can be inserted to hold the esophagus open.  This is something like a "stent" in the artery.  It actually sounds pretty good to us -- if the mass can be handled as to cancer with the seed-type radiation, and use the mesh to keep the esophagus open enough to eat -- then no surgery would be urgent and slower alternative methods (including Germanium and Aloe Vera Gel) could be used to restore health to the tissues.

He described possible treatments -- saying that it would be up to a surgeon to decide whether or not surgery should be the first option.  I have some data in these pages that it is not unusual for a surgeon to say that some radiation treatment should be used "first."  We have an appointment with the surgeon for Wednesday, March 3, 2004 -- the same day this page is linked to my newsletter.  So, some people may be reading this when we have not yet talked to the surgeon.

We will be making an appointment with the oncologist in a few more hours -- for some unknown date.

Jean told this doctor of her great reluctance to undergo either radiation or chemotherapy.

She was willing to have the surgery -- thinking that this would allow her to swallow, again, and be less harmful than chemo or radiation.

I don't know if this is true, but after indicating this reluctance this doctor described one of the complications that might occur during surgery -- below -- it sure made the surgery sound very unattractive -- and perhaps he had some motive to push her in the direction of accepting the radiation first??

There has been SO much negative publicity on radiation, and so much actual damage caused by it, that I am sure the medical profession has been looking for "safer" radiation procedures.  This doctor described what is probably the usual method.

The put a tube down the throat, very similar to an endoscopy, and then insert a "radioactive seed" down the tube and into (?) the mass, apparently for a short time -- then pull it out and up.  This small "seed" can be designed for the right size and dosage they think is "right."  The hope is that the radiation is most strong in the middle of the mass, and that it doesn't "leak out" much further.  I will certainly be doing more research on that.

They might do a dilation at the same time.  This type of treatment might, then, be repeated every several weeks, looking for control (death ?) of the cancer mass and more permanent opening of the esophagus.  If this "works" then perhaps surgery is not necessary.

This might also be the sequence which the surgeon wants to see -- use some radiation to stop the cancer metastasis, growth, and when it is then relatively safe, start cutting the mass out -- not so much, perhaps, to remove a cancer, but to remove a mass that is pressing on the esophagus.

The "horrible" description of the surgery?  Apparently the surgeon cannot tell until he starts cutting what is the condition of the tissues.  After he removes the mass, he may have to "repair" the esophagus.  If the tissues of the esophagus are not in good enough shape, he can "harvest" some tissues from the stomach lining -- and re-construct them into an esophagus -- I suppose that leaves the stomach smaller.

If there is not enough stomach lining to do this, or if there is damage to the stomach, then he "harvests" pieces of the colon and uses that to re-construct the esophagus.  I will be looking for more information on this procedure, but it sure sounds grim.  I have no idea, yet, on what shape that leaves you for elimination.

As I said, the doctor may be attempting to scare you by describing such a grim surgical procedure that you are willing to try radiation.  I don't must trust doctors, but when you are in their hands you have little choice.

I'll write more as I recall it, or research it, and will be adding quite a bit more to other pages in this section, and to this page.

If you are inclined to contact Jean Ross, my wife, please do NOT send sympathy -- that is never a helpful thought.  Advice is OK.  In fact I've decided to publish some of the suggestions we receive -- here.  Also, she has a treatment planned, primarily using germanium and a few other things, but probably going on through the radiation, first, then surgery if necessary, and does NOT particularly want or need people to argue with her on any of this.  It is her decision and I grant her the beingness to make that decision.

Jean's current home treatments rely considerably on germanium -- she takes about 4 teaspoons per day -- or about 8 full grams.  Dr. Asai suggests 2 grams for cancer treatment.  We will be using this dosage for some time.

Jean cannot swallow capsules, but the Taheebo may be added at some point.

Here is a promising substance not yet used, selenium, probably 1 gram, at least, which is quite a bit more than the RDA:

This remarkable degree of consistency for the inverse associations strengthens the likelihood of a causal relationship between low selenium status and an increased risk of cancer mortality.  (Source)

Jean is probably willing to have the "seed radiation" and then esophagus mesh, if that is available.  Further dilations, as done in the endoscopy, are probably lease invasive of the options.

Treatment of a malignant stricture of the esophagus is available but can often be disappointing. If the malignancy is determined to be small and localized without any spread beyond the esophagus then a surgical repair is often opted for and may, on rare occasion cure the cancer. If the tumor is not curable, then often, palliative treatments are employed which include chemotherapy, radiation therapy, esophageal dilation, laser treatments, injections, tumor probes or placement of an esophageal stent (wire mesh tube) to keep the esophagus open. In any situation the patient must work closely with his or her physician to decide what is the best approach for that individual since it varies from patient to patient.  (Source)

Surgery would be a second choice, if the above is not likely to help.

Surgery for cancer has vastly better success rates in hospitals that do many such procedures:

Esophageal resections were performed in 273 hospitals [in California -- 1990 - 1994]. An average of two or fewer resections were performed annually in 88% of hospitals, which accounted for 50% of all patients treated. The mortality rate in hospitals with more than 30 esophagectomies for the 5-year period was 4.8%, compared with 16% for hospitals with fewer than 30 esophagectomies. This could not be accounted for by other health variables affecting the patients' risk for surgery. There was a striking correlation between a hospital's frequency of esophagectomy and the outcome of this operation. The results support the proposition that high-risk general surgical procedures, such as esophagectomy for malignancy, should be restricted to hospitals that can exceed a yearly minimum experience.  (Source)
 

Alternative and non-standard forms of treatment that I have been researching include the following:

The DETECTION of cancer at an early stage is an important element of effective treatments.  One of the reasons that detection techniques have suffered is that the US Drug Industry has controlled this area.  An even bigger reason is that these newer techniques often cost much more money than standard techniques and would bust through the top of insurance coverage.  Research and use of these techniques is often quite "standard" in countries where insurance does not dominate the standards of medical care.

Even when detection is no longer an issue, there are other measurements of an existing cancer which can be done with modern "markers" and help inform the patient.  For instance, when a cancer is fast or slow growing it tells the patient how much time he or she may have to look for alternative forms of treatment.  This type of detection is available, but not significantly in the US.

 (Click here for more information.)

I'll be adding more ABOVE, as we move through a doctor's appointment for March 3rd, one for March 6th, another not yet scheduled, and other standard medical consultations.