What is the effect of the drug Sertonin in cancer treatment?
Will it reduce the rate of cell division.......
Cancer - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It Sertonin does not appear to be a drug for cancer treatment that I can find. Please double check your info! This is the only thing I found: Serotonin -------------- A hormone found in the brain, platelets, digestive tract, and pineal gland. It acts both as a neurotransmitter (a substance that nerves use to send messages to one another) and a vasoconstrictor (a substance that causes blood vessels to narrow). A lack of serotonin in the brain is thought to be a cause of depression. Also called 5-hydroxytryptamine.
2 :
Seratonin is a chemical compound in your brain family. Lack of this can cause depression, causing doctors to prescribe anti-depressants. This is also given to women during menopausal age to relieve symptoms of. And this is also the period of time when women are more likely to have cancer cells generate. If cancer is detected, chemotherapy can be interferred by usage of Seratonin enhanced meds. It is a vicious cycle. I take anti-depressants, have stage 3 breast cancer, went through the Chemo and Radiation, and it was tough. These treatments can cause depression alone plus the fact I was diagnosed many years ago with acute depression. I cannot stop taking my anti-depressant. My advice would be: If you are on Seratonin meds, it could interrupt with Chemo and it may help to wein yourself off the seratonin to get full benefit of the Chemo. If, like me, you can't it may be a little tougher to get through cancer treatments. I did, and it was not easy but I am still alive.
3 :
Can't find anything on a cancer drug "Sertonin', but check this out-- THE TRUTH ABOUT CHEMOTHERAPY There are more and more reports by establishment oncologists doubting the value of chemotherapy, even to the point of rejecting it outright. One of these, cancer biostatistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg, Germany, issued a monograph titled Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer in 1990. Epithelial cancers comprise the most common forms of adenocarcinoma: lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc. After ten years as a statistician in clinical oncology, Abel became increasingly uneasy. "A sober and unprejudiced analysis of the literature," he wrote, "has rarely revealed any therapeutic success by the regimens in question in treating advanced epithelial cancer." While chemotherapy is being used more and more extensively, more than a million people die worldwide of these cancers annually - and a majority have received some form of chemotherapy before dying. Abel further concluded, after polling hundreds of cancer doctors, "The personal view of many oncologists seems to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public." Abel cited studies that have shown "that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer." (The Cancer Chronicles, December, 1990.) "Even though toxic drugs often do effect a response, such as a partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor, this reduction does not prolong expected survival," Abel finds. "Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than before, since the chemo fosters the growth of resistant cell lines." Besides, the chemo has severely damaged the body's own defenses, the immune system and often the kidneys as well as the liver. In an especially dramatic table, Dr. Abel displays the results of chemotherapy in patients with various types of cancers, as the improvement of survival rates, compared to untreated patients. This table shows: -In colorectal cancer: No evidence survival is improved. -Gastric cancer: No clear evidence. -Pancreatic cancer: Study completely negative. Longer survival in control (untreated) group. -Bladder: No clinical trial done. -Breast cancer: No direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival; its use is "ethically questionable." -Ovarian cancer: No direct evidence. -Cervix and uterus: No improved survival. -Head and neck: No survival benefit but occasional shrinkage of tumors. Theoretically, those cancers that are dividing more rapidly than normal cells will be killed before the patient is, but it is nip and tuck all the way. In the case of a cancer that is dividing at the same rate or even slower than normal cells, there isn’t even a theoretical chance of success. In either event, poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs, and the resulting pain and illness often is a torment worse than the disease itself. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsion causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Hair cells are fast-growing, so the hair falls out during treatment. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain becomes fatigued. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment. Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic, which means they mimic or produce the same effect as radiation. Consequently, they also suppress the immune system, and that is one of the reasons they help spread the cancer to other areas. But whereas X-rays usually are directed at only one or two locations, these chemicals do their deadly work on every cell in the body. According to the National Cancer Institute, most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society’s "proven cure" category produce cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! (NCI research contract PH-43-68-.998. In a courageous letter, Dr. Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute condemned the Institute’s policy of continuing to endorse these drugs when everyone knew that they caused cancer. He argued: Ironically, virtually all of the chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use or testing in human cancer patients are (1) highly or variously toxic at applied dosages; (2) markedly immunosuppressive, that is, destructive of the patient’s native resistance to a variety of diseases, including cancer; and (3) usually highly carcinogenic [cancer causing].... These now well established facts have been reported in numerous publications from the National Cancer Institute itself, as well as from throughout the United States and, indeed, the world. Furthermore, what has just been said of the FDA-approved anti-cancer chemotherapeutic drugs is true, though perhaps less conspicuously, of radiological and surgical treatments of human cancer.... Dr. Saul A. Rosenberg, Associate Professor of Medicine and Radiology at Stanford University School of Medicine: Worthwhile palliation [pain relief] is achieved in many patients. However, there will be the inevitable relapse of the malignant lymphoma, and, either because of drug resistance or drug intolerance, the disease will recur, requiring modifications of the chemotherapy program and eventually failure to control the disease process. ("The Indications for Chemotherapy in the Lymphomas," Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.) Dr. Charles Moertal of the Mayo Clinic: Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete tumor regressions.... Our accepted and traditional curative efforts, therefore, yield a failure rate of 85%.... Some patients with gastrointestinal cancer can have very long survival with no treatment whatsoever. (Speech made at the National Cancer Institute Clinical Center Auditorium) If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1) toxic, (2) immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4) futile, then why would doctors continue to use it? The answer is that they don’t know what else to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into chemotherapy unless their condition seems so hopeless that the loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer to this stage, not as therapy, but experimentation, which, frankly, is a more honest description. Another reason for using drugs in the treatment of cancer is that the doctor does not like to tell the patient there is no hope. In his own mind he knows there is none, but he also knows that the patient does not want to hear that and will seek another physician who will continue some kind of treatment, no matter how useless. So he solves the problem by continuing the treatment himself. In his book, "The Wayward Cell, Cancer", Dr. Victor Richards made it clear that chemotherapy is used primarily just to keep the patient returning for treatment and to build his morale while he dies. But there is more! He said: "Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an extremely valuable role in keeping patients oriented toward proper medical therapy, and prevents the feeling of being abandoned by the physician in patients with late and hopeless cancers. Judicious employment and screening of potentially useful drugs may also prevent the spread of cancer quackery." (Victor Richards, "The Wayward Cell, Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and Treatment") Moreover, true placebo controls have been almost abandoned in the testing of chemotherapy. Drug regimen is tested against drug regimen, and doctors hardly ever look at whether the drugs do better than simple good nursing care. Because chemotherapy drugs are outright poisons, many carcinogenic, the drugs themselves can cause "treatment deaths" and additional cancers. One study among women surviving ovarian cancer after chemotherapy treatment showed a one-hundred-fold greater subsequent incidence of leukemia over those not receiving chemotherapy. In some studies, when chemotherapy and radiation were combined, the incidence of secondary tumors was about twenty-five times the expected rate. Nevertheless, chemotherapy is given to 80 percent of patients Amazingly, 85 percent of prescribed standard medical treatments across the board lack scientific validation, according to the New York Times. Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, suggests that "this is partly because only one percent of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound, and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all." Heaven forbid that anyone should forsake the nauseating, pain-racking, cancer-spreading, admittedly ineffective "proven cures" of the AMA for such "quackery" as alternative medicine that is being used effectively in the rest of the world. An older national study estimated 64 percent of cancer patients to be using alternative therapies. A recent survey at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, the world's largest with 13,000 patients, found an astounding 83 percent of cancer patients to be using alternatives. The abiding truth for cancer patients is that they want unrestricted access to all treatments. According to one analysis, only about 5 percent entirely abandon conventional cancer care even when pursuing an alternative. What patients seek is the best of all worlds, an expanded menu of options supported by access to credible information. The stereotype that orthodoxy has long put forth of poor, credulous cancer patients ripe for exploitation by clever promoters turns out to be false.
Read more discussions :
