Jean Ross Surgery To Remove The Esophagus

As you may have been following this long journey, of Jean's, you know that she "beat cancer" but did NOT beat the effects of radiation!

The exact protocol Jean used is HERE.

Beating cancer?  The first medical evidence of this was from the actual language of the PET scan done on August 19, 2004, which referred to the area of the body where the cancer had been, and had been described as 7 cm in length, as now having a length of about 4 cm.

In the area of the fundus of the stomach, there is, in maximal dimension, an approximately 4 cm area of diffuse moderate abnormal hypermetabolism.  (Source)

The PET scan did NOT say "no trace of cancer found!"  Medical authorities don't use such language.  Instead, they refer to an area as having cancer, if they find it, and even then the language is not that simple.  Or they use fancy words to hide the fact that they are unwilling to be caught claiming that cancer could EVER be cured -- so:

"Fundus:"  A large, expanded compartment within the stomach that serves as a temporary storage area for ingested food material.  www.sci.sdsu.edu/histology/gloss_e.htm

The word "fundus" refers to the area at junction between the esophagus and the stomach -- that is where the cancer was in the first place.  That area is described as 4 cm, where it had been 7 cm originally -- this is one accurate measure of the shrinkage.  The fact that there is "diffuse" hypermetabolism means that there are no "focal points" of active cell growth.  The fact that there is "moderate abnormal" hypermetabolism is consistent with a hunk of dead meat rotting, or being eaten away by the macrophages.  This would be expected when heavy alternative remedies are used, but would not be expected if only toxic chemo drugs had been used.  (Source)

When I first saw this report, in August 2004, I was certainly pleased.  But, doctors who deal with cancer are not very likely EVER to admit that you have actually "cured" cancer -- particularly one like esophagus cancer for which NO cures have ever been medically proven!  Instead, they slightly alter their previous statements about "how accurate a PET scan is."  They now say that, "Well, the PET scan can only detect something which is 7 mm in size, or larger, so there could easily be small clumps of cancer cells that would NOT be detected by a PET scan."  That is what they say AFTER you show them that the PET scan shows "no cancer."

Then they say, "Well, a biopsy is the only sure way of detecting cancer."

I have certainly recommended against ever getting biopsies -- HERE.  But, when you are sure there WAS cancer, and you feel there IS NO cancer now, I was willing to have those biopsies to confirm the absence of cancer.  So, we sought the supposedly more accurate test of an "endoscopy ultrasound with biopsies."  This was done on September 28, 2004, and the biopsies showed NO cancer.

This report shows that three separate biopsies were taken, shows no trace of cancer, but makes the comment that one of the biopsy samples was too fragmented to be definitive.  (Source)

Again, medical people are loath to ever admit that cancer is gone!  AFTER you get such a great report from biopsies, then you run into doctors (as I did) who say, "Well, I've seen many times when the biopsy shows no cancer, but it is still there!"  So, in Jean's case, doctors at UCLA indicated that they did not accept the biopsies as proof that there was no cancer.

It was strange, also, that earlier I had been told that the endoscopy ultrasound was a very accurate way of measuring the mass of a cancer (or tumor).  After the doctor did THIS endoscopy ultrasound on Jean I got the verbal report that he was "unable to measure the size of the mass."  He gave excuses for this -- that he did not have a "probe" that was small enough to go through the "stricture" and take an accurate look.

So, doctors are eager to snatch death from the teeth of victory!  That phrase is used often -- here is a political reference:

Just a week ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the political sensation of California -- and of the national media, with his face on the cover of both Time and Newsweek. Polls showed him leading everyone in the horde of candidates for governor by a wide margin.

Now Arnold is trailing an undistinguished political hack named Cruz Bustamante in the polls. The ability of the Republicans to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory is one of the political marvels of our time.  Source

Doctors cannot see good news when it comes to cancer.  One of their common justifications is "Spontaneous Remission!"  These are recorded instances where some cancer was proven to exist, and then proven to not exist, with no medical explanation.  The justification then is, "Well it sometimes happens that a cancer just spontaneously disappears!"

In 1993, the Institute of Noetic Sciences published Spontaneous Remission: An Annotated Bibliography. In this work, the authors, Caryle Hirshberg and the late Brendan O'Regan defined spontaneous remission as "the disappearance, complete or incomplete, of a disease or cancer without medical treatment or treatment that is considered inadequate to produce the resulting disappearance of disease symptoms or tumor."  (Source)

Prayer is often the cause of spontaneous remission, according to many, and denied except in derogatory comments, by doctors.

That is the hidden story about cancer -- when you hear the news that so many people die from cancer, the hidden truth is that they actually die from the treatment long before they die from the cancer.

It may well be that the cancer, if not treated with chemo and radiation, would finally kill!  Could be true.  I know that in Jean's case, now that we have tests showing "no trace of cancer" she still cannot swallow or eat.

The radiation was aimed directly at her esophagus, of course, since that is where the cancer was.  And, the radiation surely caused changes in her body.

The radiation may well have shrunk the cancer?  Chemo may have shrunk the cancer?  The many alternatives we have been using (and still are) may have shrunk the cancer.   There were many positive thoughts and prayers -- they may have shrunk the cancer?

But, there is no guessing about one of the so-called "side effects" of the radiation.

Radiation causes tissues to be scarred -- radiation creates scar-tissue.  Scar tissue around a "hollow tube" such as the esophagus, has a very well-known action -- the scar tissue "tightens" as it becomes more hard.  The damage actually done by the very treatments that are used is probably the main cause of the high death rate associated with this type of cancer.

The American Cancer Society estimates during 2004, 13,300 deaths from esophageal cancer will occur. Because esophageal cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage, most people with esophageal cancer eventually die of this disease. However, survival rates have been improving. During the early 1960s, only 4% of all white patients and 1% of all African-American patients survived at least 5 years after diagnosis. Now, 13% of all white patients and 9% of all African-American patients survive at least 5 years after diagnosis.  (source)

Scarring of the esophagus, from radiation, is much more common than the radiation doctors are willing to admit.  So, scarring  of the tissues of the esophagus causes that vital, hollow tube, to get smaller and smaller in its opening as the scar tissue hardens.  Even if the cancer is gone, the esophagus cannot function with this scar tissue -- only surgery could handle this, and the type of surgery is very expensive and often never even offered. 

You would hope and think that surgery could remove scar tissue?  In the image below the "stricture" is at "label #2" and is often caused by scarring of the tissue of the esophagus -- as it certainly was in Jean's case.

Stricture of the esophagus

1 Esophagus
2 Stricture (narrowing) of the esophagus
3 Stomach
4 Liver
 

Surgery does not work here. The esophagus is not a very thick tube -- and if the scar tissue is an integral part of the esophagus, it would be virtually impossible to use a knife to cut away the scar tissue ONLY, and not damage the esophagus.

That's why surgeons are so negative on using surgery to solve cancer of the esophagus -- they can't cut away some part of the area (cancerous) without damaging healthy parts of the area.

However, doctors at "lower level" institutions, such as "private practice" in Burbank, are not much likely to be studying and using the most advanced surgical techniques -- these are generally originated and proven at the "higher level" institution such as a "teaching hospital" -- UCLA Hospital.

The "lower level" surgeon, Dr. Renner, who looked at Jean "knew about" this more advanced surgery, but obviously had not done it and was not about to start doing it at his age and experience in the "old tried and true stuff!"  He was the surgeon who told Jean that she was NOT a candidate for surgery, that IF he did do the surgery it would take some 11 hours in surgery, 30 days in ICU and only a 5% chance of survival.

In fact, and after the fact, I found that surgery is the PREFERRED first procedure in many esophagus cancer cases:

When esophageal cancer is localized to the esophagus and has not spread elsewhere, surgery is the treatment of choice. The goal of surgery, in most cases, is to cure the patient. In some circumstances chemotherapy, radiation, or a combination of the two will be used to make surgery easier to perform.  (Source: Medical Encyclopedia -- National Institutes of Health)

I consider that malpractice, but it is just the simple truth that the "old guys" don't know what the "new guys" know!  And, ordinary health insurance certainly doesn't want to pay for the rare skills which the new guys have proven to be workable.  The oncologist, also, Dr. Arzoo, seems likewise guilty of malpractice since he indicated that surgery should come only AFTER radiation and chemotherapy.

So, once we finally got the insurance to authorize a "second opinion" compared to this "lower level" surgeon, we got into a whole new world of medical expertise.

Dr. Mary Maish is only 37, but is already world-famous for her knowledge and skill doing "esophagus surgery."  She told us, on the first visit, that had we seen her first, she would NEVER have recommended any radiation -- she said, "It causes exactly the type of damage you have in your throat!"  Dr. Maish is on the left in the adjacent picture.  Click here for training and assignments for Dr. Maish.  This link includes a study showing Dr. Maish has started some exciting medical research in the area of "harvesting" living cells from your body that can be used to "grow" actual tissue to use instead of the artificial material used in "valve replacement!"

Here is the indictment of the earlier surgeon we saw, and more importantly, the insurance system which, of course, must ration care and cannot possibly afford to send every patient to see the "best" expert.

Health insurance ensures illness and death!  (An article by Karl Loren.)

Nonetheless, it is stunning to realize that many months of agonizing pain and suffering could have been prevented had we gone to UCLA FIRST instead of for only the second opinion.

The surgeon also said that she would have done the surgery first, not chemo, and that only after the surgery was done might she consider that some "chemo would be necessary."

In any event, we did not know that data, and willingly went through the very damaging radiation -- which caused harm and damage exactly opposite what the radiation doctor (Dr. Hoffman) had predicted for us.

So, at this point, it is no longer possible to cut away just the scar tissue around the esophagus -- the entire esophagus must now be removed!

Surgical resection (removal) of the esophagus is indicated in several types of esophageal abnormalities, as well as for esophageal cancer. Your surgeon will choose one of several approaches for the removal of your esophagus and will describe the specific approach to be used for you.  (source)

Then, the surgeon pulls up the stomach (stretches it upwards) to take the place of the esophagus.

Within a couple months after this surgery Jean will swallow food through her mouth, normally, and it will enter an extension of the stomach, immediately, rather than flow through the tube called the esophagus.  Two important "valves" in the normal healthy system have to be removed for this procedure -- they are the "sphincter" which normally would be between the stomach and the esophagus.  The other "sphincter" is between the stomach and the small intestine.  With both of those valves gone, Jean's food will pass down her throat, into the stomach, and on into the intestine with no valve to keep it in one place while normal digestion takes place.  This, then, calls for new skills with eating, such as "never lie flat and eat or swallow," and "eat more meals, but smaller, during the day."

She should be able to eat and swallow just about anything.

It is curious, but logical.  Lettuce is something which she may not be able to swallow.  Very few people ever "chew" lettuce.  So, it slides down in "whole pieces" and it can get stuck.

But, just about everything else she can eat normally -- maybe not beef!

The surgery takes some 10 or 11 hours!  Why so long?  It is a delicate job, first, to enter into the body without having to cut through muscles or bones -- and the surgeon will have to get her knife up the esophagus tube and outside the tube, since that is where the tumor is -- all the way up to about the lower end of the mouth/throat.

Much of this will be done while watching the work area through a tiny TV camera!  Click here for a good description of this type of surgery.

So, first to remove the esophagus, then to start the process of stretching the stomach and pulling part of it up to replace the esophagus.  Sounds gruesome, but I'll tell you that it promises a "life" back, and Jean has had none -- no eating, no swallowing, and having to get all her nutrition through a tube into her belly!

There were TWO times when Jean preferred to die than to live they way she was "living."  One of those was when she was suffering terribly from the radiation and chemo.  We planned her funeral together --- and published the details!  That suffering ended, gradually, with Jean's decision to stop all chemoradiation before "they were done."  Not so well known, though, was the period of discouragement when she thought she might NEVER be able to swallow again.  By that time she was actually gaining weight from the nutrition in the feeding tube =-= but no one was holding out any medical help for the swallowing -- Jean was not willing to live on a feeding tube, even though that could be done.  That was tougher for me to agree with, but I did agree that such a "life" was not worth "living."  We found the way, however, and certainly not because of any doctors offered to us by the health insurance company, but only because we were willing to "private pay" for two different medical consultations at UCLA!

One of those private pay consultations was with Dr. James Farrell, whose written report about his examination of Jean was that she was a candidate for surgery and that the surgery would probably result in a "cure of the cancer."  It is VERY rare for a medical doctor to use the word "cure" in connection with any cancer, much less cancer of the esophagus.  Dr. Farrell recommended Dr. Mary Maish, at UCLA, as one of the world's experts on esophagus surgery.

If you've read the earlier reports, Jean originally had a CAT scan (April 2004) that showed a cancerous mass about 7 cm long -- that's about the size of a hot dog.  The mass started at the base of the esophagus (called the "GE Juncture") and went upwards, along the esophagus.  A PET scan showed that although there was no metastasis (spreading of the cancer) to remote areas, there was something called "local invasion."  That's where the cancerous tumor spread by touching (like contagion) the esophagus and some of the esophagus tissue was also now involved with cancer.

At the end of Jean's willingness to experience more chemo or radiation, she had received 20 out of 28 planned radiation treatments and almost all of the chemotherapy.  Another CAT scan was done at that point, and the report we got was "at least a 30% shrinkage."  The oncologist had been aiming for a 50% shrinkage.   So, this news was not as good as we hoped.  The reason the report was "at least" is that the CAT scan was done on a different machine so that the final results could not be compared exactly.

If the shrinkage had been 30%, that would have meant there was still a mass of about 4 cm long along side of the esophagus.  Since the PET scan showed no sign of cancer, but did make some reference to a "mass" we could only figure that the cancerous mass had been killed, just as our family physician had told us we had to do with the heavy chemo and radiation, and with the alternative remedies which I used in very large dosages.

But, we had no doubt that there was still a mass there -- albeit not cancerous, but a mass that was probably causing the swallowing problem -- we figured that the only way of getting rid of that mass was the surgery -- since the esophagus is so delicate we also knew that it would not be possible to remove the remaining mass without damaging the esophagus, so we understood that both the mass AND the entire esophagus would be removed by surgery.

We even asked the surgeon, "What do you do if you find that the mass still has cancer cells in it?" (We had been told that this might be the case.)  She said, "Well I simply cut it all out -- whether it has live cancer cells, or not, it has not spread and the surgery is not any different.  I just cut out the mass and the esophagus, and any suspicious-looking lymph nodes in the area."

That's what we expected!  (That is not what happened!)

So, keep in mind that the cancer was in at least two different, but adjoining, locations -- the tumor itself, quite distinct from the esophagus, and the esophagus.  There may also have been cancer in some of the nearby lymph nodes, but none of those were biopsied until the surgery on the esophagus.  

After those many hours of surgery Jean goes into ICU for just a couple days.  Why?  We asked the surgeon.  She said, "When you come out of a surgery as major as this we want you to have the maximum amount of monitoring of the recuperation process -- and immediate availability of the maximum amount of any necessary treatments (oxygen, etc.)."  She said, however, "But there is little danger from this type of surgery -- the ICU time is not because of the danger to your survival, but just wanting to have the maximum control over your immediate environment.  Probably after only a couple days in ICU you can be moved to a regular hospital room, and probably after about 4 or 5 days in the hospital, you can go home!"

That's amazing to me -- 10 hours of surgery, yet home a week after the first knife cut!

So, that's the prognosis.  I write this on October 19, 2004.  Jean and I are moving into a hotel near the hospital later today -- so I won't have a long trip every day to visit her.  Tomorrow morning we'll probably report into the hospital about 6:30 AM -- we find out a bit later today.

I'll stay in this near-by hotel and come immediately to the ICU when Jean can have a visitor -- visitors at the ICU can be there 24 hours per day, less only two hours taken for room and bed cleaning every day.

I may or may not have time, after this hospital experience, to come back to this page to write more.  Eventually I will write more, but I don't know how quickly that will happen.

Karl Loren

The Cancerous Mass
 Is GONE!

The next part of this report was started on Saturday, October 23rd, 2004, a few days after the surgery described above.

The surgery was very successful -- it took the least amount of time (about 8 hours) among the several possible outcomes -- and Jean was up, sitting in a chair, just a few hours after the surgery.  She took several walks on Saturday, the third day after surgery.

But, there was one astounding report that simply defies belief and explanation by medical experts.

As I said above, the surgeon expected to find and remove a mass, perhaps as big as 4 cm, attached alongside of the esophagus -- and, of course, to also remove the esophagus -- probably both at the same time.  The four cm mass was detected on a PET scan done on August 19, 2004.  Normally a report from a PET scan on the size of a mass is considered very accurate.  Depending on what the surgeon found when she entered, the procedure could have been very complex, or less complex -- with an estimate anywhere from 8 hours to more than 12 hours being required.

When the surgeon got into that area, with her knife, and her TV camera and lights, she was astounded to find NO MASS of any kind.

Yes, there was the esophagus, with greatly thickened tissue walls, but where there had been a 7 cm mass growing along side the esophagus, she found nothing.  The 7 cm had shrunk during the use of conventional therapy AND the continuous use of our alternative therapies at the same time.  The shrinkage was "at least 30%."  However, there was no estimate that included that the mass was gone completely.  The report was that there WAS a mass there, but that the size of shrinkage could not be calculated because the initial CAT scan was done on a different machine.  A few months later the PET scan still showed a 4 cm mass, even though it also showed that there was no cancer in that mass.

In other words, the entire cancerous mass had disappeared -- down from a remaining large mass of 4 cm, approximately, confirmed on August 19, 2004, by PET scan, after we stopped all chemo and radiation, but continued to use large doses of germanium, Taheebo, and several other alternative remedies, this remaining mass had just disappeared!

So WE conclude that the alternative treatments killed the cancer, proven to be true by August 19, 2004.  The doctors conclude that the chemoradiation killed the cancer!  I'll allow that both of these types of treatments helped do this.  But, no conventional treatment had shrunk the mass from the 4 cm found in August, to the zero found on October 20, 2004!

I wrote about the shrinkage of the dead meat tumor on many pages, here is a reference to the method by which I felt that the dead meat should disappear.  All the while, after chemo and radiation, that I was giving Jean these alternative remedies, I was concentrating on substances which would remove dead meat.

Radiation and Chemo kill FIRST the immune system cells -- because they are the fastest growing -- then they kill cancer.

If the cancer drugs and radiation are good at killing the cancer (I presume that is true) what is there left of the immune system to clean up the dead meat?

Is it possible that the cure for cancer is just a few inches away -- that the better treatment is exactly what my family physician told us -- that the mass was too big to expect alternative remedies to shrink it, but that as soon as it was dead, or mostly dead, you should quit the chemo and radiation, and pour on the immune system boosters, and alternatives to help kill the remainder and get rid of that mass.

Jean's (Bonnie's) "white blood cell count" is an important measure during conventional treatment. When that count gets "too low" the doctor is quite eager to have her get "white blood cell booster shots ("Neupogen")." She has had two series of those.  If we had to pay for them they would have cost more than $1000 per series! 

Last Friday, June 4, 2004, he wanted her to get more, but "unfortunately," her white blood cell count was "not low enough" for the insurance to pay for more shots! The immunological impact of chemotherapy and radiation are better known than the impact of the cancer itself. These treatments impair the bone marrow production of blood cells, particularly white blood cells (leukocytes) and they can also impair the functional quality of the immune cells circulating in the plasma. Immune suppression by cancer therapies can lead to flare up of chronic viral infections and can also make a patient susceptible to serious bacterial infections. In order to avoid these problems, chemotherapy and radiation are interrupted if the immune parameters drop too low; additionally or alternatively, stem cell stimulants, such as Neupogen and epogen, can be administered (by injection, usually once per week until recovery).  (Source)

(source)

There has apparently never been any record of such an event -- where the very existence of the cancer, in the first place, was so very thoroughly documented, where so much conventional treatment did the conventional thing, caused a reduction of the mass some, but certainly not all of it.

Now we look back at the fact that the endoscopy ultrasound, done on September 28, 2004, does NOT mention this mass -- and the doctor was just vague about not being able to measure the mass which he "knew" must be there -- because, of course, "cancer is never cured!"

Yet, here was the surgeon, looking at this area with her own eye-balls, and there was no mass to be found!

Yes, the esophagus was greatly thickened, undoubtedly damage from the terrible radiation that Jean had received.  The greatest amount of thickening was at the "GE Juncture" which is the spot at the bottom of the esophagus, where the esophagus opens into the stomach. That is where the cancer had been located and that is the primary focus of all the radiation -- that spot.

The radiation doctor, of course, said that Jean would be "back to normal eating" within three weeks of the end of radiation.  Was that a lie?  Well, at least it was not the truth!  Was that radiation doctor guilty of "medical malpractice?"  I think so.  However, I had written formally to him, renouncing my right to sue for malpractice because I wanted him to be willing to receive my several letters describing what was happening to Jean.  I'm told by a doctor I trust that "Doctors are frightened to death about patients who write letters -- because such letters are often later used in mal-practice lawsuits!"

Could the radiation or chemo have caused the disappearance of that remaining mass, even when they were no longer being used?

The doctors MUST believe that, or their entire house of cards could come tumbling down.  Even so, when and as THIS story is widely distributed, with the hundreds of pages of day-by-day detail, and copies of medical reports, the hope of the world can be revived just a bit more.

YOU can help bring honesty and ethics into the "cancer industry" by telling your friends about THIS page.  There has never probably been such a detailed and so accurate a recounting of an entire 8 months experience with a deadly cancer -- where the patient deliberately accepted deadly chemoradiation, knowing the dangers, and choose alternatives in confidence that they would work -- not vague hope!

We, and many others, believe that our heavy use of the alternative therapies all through this process, and particularly during the five months between the CAT scan that reported a remaining mass and the surgery that found none!  Jean got massive doses of germanium, Taheebo and several other items, several times per day.  There were NO doctors involved in that treatment.  Why would they have "worked" during this period?  Because the terrible damage of chemoradiation was NOT being repeated after Jean refused more of that stuff in June 2004.

Keep in mind that when Jean refused more treatment she also believed, without doubt, that she would die.  It may well be the truth, that, "You must be willing to die before you can be cured of a "fatal" disease like cancer!"

If you, or a loved one, had esophagus cancer and thought to use the same approach that Jean used??, could you expect the same result??

I think the answer is, "YES!" But, I also think that few, if any, would actually follow the exact protocol we used, even though it is all published here for anyone to read.  There is a very strong tendency to "cut corners" in costs, use some smaller dose, or different brand or cheapen the treatment some way -- I feel this will happen in almost all cases -- even so the patient could get similar results.  "Willingness to die" may be an important part of this!  When a spouse watches his loved one in pain, and cannot bear the thought of losing her, he is denying the very hope that she may still have -- death is an escape from pain and disease!

Also, there were MANY factors in addition to the alternative remedies, themselves, that contributed to Jean's success -- do not think that you can ignore those in your plan to duplicate the care I gave Jean.  But, if you do spend the time necessary to read these many pages, and to be sure that you understand every word on every page, and then follow the well-publicized plan honestly, you should have the same miracle.

There are several other factors relating to the surgery -- read more if you want this further detail.

This type of surgery sometimes requires that a hunk of either the small or the large intestine be used, or added to the stomach, in order to replace the esophagus.  In Jean's case, this was not necessary.  This made for a shorter procedure.  If the stomach had been damaged sufficiently, then pieces of the intestine could be substituted.

Jean's life style will now change in several ways I didn't quite understand before the surgery.

For instance, she should never, ever, eat food while lying flat (in bed for instance).

I did not fully appreciate what was being "cut out" before the surgery -- probably because the surgeon figures that very few of her patients would understand much about the structure of the digestive system.

The body has a "valve" (sphincter muscle) which opens and closes between the stomach and the upper intestine.  This valve keeps food in the stomach until it is fully digested, then opens.  In Jean's case, this valve has been removed.  This means that food will not stay in the stomach very long, but continue through into the small intestine.  Since it may not have been fully digested, it will probably be useful for her to take enzymes and other digestive aides with every meal.

Since that lower valve is no longer there, there is no barrier between the duodenum, where "bile" is produced, and the stomach and mouth.  If there is a vomiting or gagging action caused by bad food, toxins, or whatever, then bile could easily come up into the mouth then go down the windpipe and cause sudden pneumonia. 

At the bottom of the esophagus is a valve (another sphincter muscle) that opens and closes to allow food to go from the esophagus into the stomach.  This valve is no longer there, either.  Food enters Jean's mouth, goes down the "tube" (made newly from the stomach extension) and passes directly to the upper intestine, without any valve stopping it.

This means that she must always be sitting (or standing) when she eats -- so that the food can go down (by gravity) and not lodge in the upper area and cause acid reflux.  (The esophagus had muscles in it that pushed food down into the stomach.  There is no such muscle action now.)

These factors explain why Jean will now need to "learn" how to eat.  We've resolved that we will always now eat sitting (or standing) and not in a "slumped posture" or, for instance, while lying in bed;  then take a one-hour walk after every such meal.  The walk will do us good, for itself, but the one hour will be enough for the passage of virtually all the food through the stomach and into the upper intestine.

Presumably we will also "learn" more of "how to eat" as the experience continues.  It would be important, probably, to NOT eat foods in such a way as to cause constipation -- that could block food from entering the intestine, and make the acid reflux problem more serious.

Probably, also, the overall digestion of food will be changed dramatically -- so that full nutritional value may not be obtained -- thus, probably, more need for supplements to ensure that the body gets them very directly (under the tongue, for instance) rather than from food that doesn't get fully digested in a short stay in the stomach.

Not many people know as much as I've written here -- so if you know anyone who faces this situation, you may want to refer them here.  If anything I am an "observer" of what exists and what happens -- I've certainly known that about myself for some years -- and now see a whole new field of "experience" which I can observe, report on perhaps, and make plans on the data collected.

KL

On October 26, 2004, I received news about even more miracles -- and good news.

When we discussed the surgery with Dr. Maish, I asked her whether or not she expected to do biopsies once she got inside.  She didn't give a firm answer, but indicated "probably" and we signed a consent form to include removal (excision) of lymph nodes, then to be biopsied.

In fact we got the Surgical Pathology Report on Tuesday, October 26, 2004.  That report showed seven different areas from which samples were taken for biopsy.  Five of those were lymph nodes -- from different areas.  All five of these groups showed:

"negative for carcinoma"

One further group was the entire esophagus that had been cut out.  Remember that an earlier report had indicted "local invasion" of the cancer from the tumor into the adjacent tissue -- into the esophagus.  So, we knew that some parts of the esophagus had active cancer at one time -- even though the PET scan showed no active cancer, there could have been cancer that was too small to see by the PET scan.

There was no live cancer found in this tissue.  The actual report does include "Multiple microscopic foci of residual adenocarcinoma and areas consistent with treated adenocarcinoma."

My understanding of that language is that the biopsies found evidence of formerly alive cancer cells, but nothing alive at this time.

There was another finding:  "Areas consistent with treated carcinoma extend into muscularis propir."

There was another finding, about this esophagus specimen:  "Full-thickness fibrosis of esophageal wall in area of residual adenocarcinoma."

Another finding, related to the esophagus which had been removed:  "Proximal esophageal and distal gastric margins negative for carcinoma, dysplasia, or intestinal metaplasia."

Finally, this finding about the esophagus:  "Six lymph nodes, all negative for malignancy."

Part of the stomach had also been removed -- that part next to the cancer.  This part of the stomach was described, in the pathology report:  "Gastric muscosa, negative for carcinoma, dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia."

Those are all complex words, but they add up to "no cancer found" in a large number of tests of the various tissues involved anywhere near the original cancer.

The actual three-page Pathology Report, scanned, is available HERE.

On this same day, Tuesday, October 26, 2004, Jean also had a "swallowing test" and I was allowed to observe the entire test.  This is a test where she drinks a "barium mixture" which shows up very easily in an X-Ray.  She had the moving X-Ray being recorded as she assumed different postures and swallowed this barium drink.  Click here to read about the earlier swallowing test Jean had.

These tests showed the barium passing down the "pull up stomach" as they call the "new esophagus."  So, swallowing was now demonstrated to be possible.

The tests also showed "no leakage" of any of the liquid through the "joints" where the new structure had been sewn into place.

Finally, this test looks for "aspiration."  That is when the person swallows some liquid and all or part of it goes down the wind-pipe rather than into the stomach. This can be very serious because swallowing liquid into the lungs can cause almost instant pnemonia, and quick death if not handled.

Jean gagged a bit as she swallowed, and the X-Ray showed some of the liquid went down the wrong pipe!   That's called "aspiration" and is not a good thing -- but this was not very serious.

The solution of this is important, but not  complicated.  As I said above she is never supposed to eat (or drink) while lying down, or in a slumped position.  In fact the three different posture she assumed for the swallowing test were ALL mostly flat on the table -- so as soon as she realizes she must eat while sitting up straight, the "aspiration" is very unlikely to occur.  The remedy here is for her to have a session with a "speech therapist" who will watch Jean swallow, and correct any bad habits -- guide her into the proper procedure for swallowing so that she doesn't get some of the food down the windpipe.

So, Jean has now passed all the tests, as far as I know, to be allowed out of the hospital -- she has no cancer of any type and can swallow.

She will have a session with a dietician to help her learn what foods she can eat safely in the early weeks -- in about two months she should be completely healed internally, and then able to eat or swallow any normal food (except lettuce and beef!).

In fact I wrote the above when I understood that the plan was as described.  However, later I learned that the swallowing test was done wrongly -- could have caused Jean's death the way it was done -- and no one told us that!

I have a full report on what went wrong during the first swallowing test, and the drug that was prescribed to "solve" that wrongness HERE.  That drug was one that would have cost $1,500 for a usual dosage -- to solve the infection CAUSED inside the hospital.  This "mistake" was in sharp contrast with our great admiration for the work of the surgeon, but an indictment of UCLA Hospital, and undoubtedly, as you will see when reading that link, of ALL hospitals -- for many of them are guilty of this transgression, and never admit it.  Don't miss THIS LINK!

I also spent many hours in ICU, with Jean, and have some startling revelations about that experience too.  I'll write elsewhere on that, but let me just say now that you don't get the type of perfect care you might expect in ICU.  I had to get so angry at the dangerous things I saw that I complained often --- even though the only people I could complain to were the very same ones whose care we needed to pull Jean through that critical time.

At one point the head nurse asked me to leave the room -- I did.  When I came back, an hour later, I was allowed in, but told that I could only stay 15 minutes -- I confronted that head nurse very intensely, and she backed down -- the visiting rules were clear and I had done nothing during my time in that room than point out lapses in their own standard of care.

Yes, I will be writing a full report on that experience.  The conclusion, don't let your loved ones go into an ICU without your being there every minute you are allowed to be there -- you cannot afford to trust that all those busy nurses and doctors will do what they are supposed to do.

I'll write more about this.

For now, let me bask in the warm glow of a medical miracle that few doctors will ever acknowledge, but I know, and you will know, that Jean was cured of cancer with some small help of conventional treatment, but also in spite of the terrible damage done to her by that very conventional treatment.

There is a way to cure cancer, but it is not found in a few magic pills, nor in slavish reliance on traditional medicine.
 

Karl Loren

This web site is a breath of fresh air in a world of pollution.