A great deal of fear surrounds the combination of botanical medicine and modern medicine that isn’t based in truth or scientific rigor, but rather on theory or hearsay. Unfortunately, that deters many patients from treatment protocols that can greatly enhance their quality of life and prolong their life as well.

There is an extensive body of research demonstrating in vitro and in vivo (animal and human) synergy between natural products and anti-cancer drugs including chemotherapy, targeted agents, and immunotherapy against primary cancer, cancer resistance, and particularly cancer stem cells.

I often find myself thinking that modern medicine has it all wrong when it comes to treating cancer. Miraculous new treatments for cancer make headlines every day, but what are the long-term results of these treatments? Are these wonder drugs truly extending life, and more importantly, are they enhancing quality of life?

According to a recently published paper in the British Medical Journal, one of the most prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journals, more than one-half of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency from 2009 to 2013 show no improvement in quality of life or survival.

“Success is never final, and failure is never fatal”
-John Wooden

If you have recently been diagnosed with advanced cancer or another serious life-threatening disease, remember that everything you might think about it—positive or negative—is merely an interpretation. You are the one who decides how you will relate to the diagnosis.

My advice, based on my three decades of working with people with serious illness, is simple. Do not limit yourself by assuming that you or anyone else knows what the outcome will be. The truth is that no one knows. Surrender to the unknown and focus your attention on living your best life.

It is blessedly freeing to accept what is in this moment, without projecting into the future. Use your mind and heart to seek out and consult with trained, experienced, well-respected professionals whom you trust. And use the power of prayer to help guide you.

Understanding Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (Part 2): Research Demonstrating its Role as a Valuable Prognostic Marker in Cancer

A large body of research (as well as my clinical observations) point to chronic inflammation as a powerful force in the initiation, growth, and spread of cancer. As a result, an essential component of my protocol for health includes addressing inflammation.

As I discussed in part 1 of this series, there are three points to consider when evaluating the role of inflammation in cancer. First, a chronic inflammatory state can initiate cancer development. Second, it’s important to discover and address the root cause of the inflammation—for example, pathogenic (chronic infection), life-style, stress, and/or poor dietary habits. And third, recognize that the cancer itself creates inflammation—as the cancer energy mutates and gains intelligence, it manipulates the immune system, creating a pro-inflammatory micro-environment favorable to cancer growth.

Research indicates that the systemic manifestations of inflammation can provide a valuable biomarker for prognosis and treatment stratification. In particular, numerous studies indicate that a simple indicator of systemic inflammation—based on neutrophilia and/or lymphocytopenia—can provide prognostic information in a wide range of cancer types. In particular, the value of one index (the dNLR) derived from total white cell and neutrophil counts, is enabling large retrospective studies to be carried out.

Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio May Be a Predictor of Mortality in All Conditions

White blood cell (WBC) count is one of the useful inflammatory biomarkers in clinical practice. For example, even if WBC is within normal range, subtypes of WBC including N/L ratio may predict cardiovascular mortality.

N/L ratio is a readily measurable laboratory marker used to evaluate systemic inflammation. There are many different conditions that can affect N/L ratio, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome (1), left ventricular dysfunction, acute coronary syndromes, valvular heart disease, abnormal thyroid function tests, renal or hepatic dysfunction, known malignancy (2,3,4), local or systemic infection, previous history of infection (<3 months), inflammatory diseases, and any medication related to inflammatory conditions.

Here’s one example of how the N/L ratio can be useful as part of the evaluation of a specific cancer and the treatment protocol: not only N/L ratio but also mean platelet volume, red cell distribution width (5), platelet distribution width, CRP, uric acid and gamma-glutamyl transferase (6) are easy markers to evaluate the prognosis of colon cancer patients (7). However, one should keep in mind that N/L ratio itself alone without other inflammatory markers may not give exact information to clinicians about the prognosis of colon cancer patients. (8,9).

Inflammation is an essential part of our body’s immune defense. When we encounter pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, or parasites, our body responds with inflammation to fight the invaders and increase immune response. In these instances, inflammation is beneficial. But inflammation has a dark side—left unchecked, it can wreak havoc on cells, tissues, and organs. For example, it’s well established that chronic inflammation is a powerful force in the initiation, growth, and spread of cancer.

There are three essential points to consider: First, a chronic inflammatory state can, over time, initiate cancer development. Second, we still need to find the cause of the chronic state of inflammation—for example, pathogenic (chronic infection), life-style, stress, years of poor eating, or a combination of the above. And third, it is important to keep in mind that the cancer energy, as it gains in intelligence, manipulates our immune system, creating a cancer-favorable, pro-inflammatory micro-environment.

Research indicates that the systemic manifestations of inflammation can provide a valuable biomarker for prognosis and treatment stratification. Numerous studies indicate that a simple indicator of systemic inflammation—based on neutrophilia and/or lymphocytopenia—can provide prognostic information in a wide range of cancer types. In particular, the value of one index (the dNLR) derived from total white cell and neutrophil counts, is enabling large retrospective studies to be carried out.

Although not informative from a biological standpoint in distinguishing cause from effect, the results of these studies are likely to be of significance in how we approach cancer. In my practice, I always consider the role of inflammation in cancer and tailor protocols for patients accordingly. The following markers are among those I consider most important:

• Tumor-associated neutrophils (TANs)
  Bio-Markers: CD11b+, CD66b+, CD63+

Tumor-associated neutrophils (TAN) play a major role in cancer biology. Neutrophils are the most abundant circulating leukocyte in humans, and are phenotypically plastic. Neutrophils, as a key component in inflammation, often play a crucial role in inflammation driven tumorigenesis. TAN can take an anti-tumorigenic (what we are calling an “N1-phenotype”) versus a pro-tumorigenic (“N2”) phenotype. The anti-tumor activities of N1 TANs include expression of more immuno-activating cytokines and chemokines, lower levels of arginase, and more capability of killing tumor cells. N2 neutrophils are pro-tumorigenic, and secrete T2 cytokines.

I recently read a paper entitled “Integrative Oncology” ¹ published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. To say I was shocked at the misrepresentation presented as “fact” is an understatement.

I am strongly compelled to offer a rebuttal to this article. I can only hope that those who most need the perspective of someone who has worked in clinical practice with cancer patients on a daily basis for almost three decades will benefit from my experience.

Personally, I prefer to use the term “Unified Medicine” over “Integrative Oncology” to more appropriately describe the wholistic ETMS (Eclectic Triphasic Medical System) model I developed and practice, known as ‘Mederi Medicine’ or ‘Mederi Care’.

Mederi Medicine is an approach where all aspects of an individual are addressed for optimal health and well being. This includes the fundamental building blocks of nutrition, herbs, lifestyle, and spiritual and emotional health, with the tools of modern conventional medicine employed when necessary. As a musician, I think of Mederi Medicine as similar to the way that the various parts of an orchestra each play an essential role in creating beautiful music. The ETMS is not a fragmented approach, but is synergistic, meaning that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This harmonious approach is something that is sorely lacking in modern conventional medicine”.

“I think of Mederi Medicine as similar to the way that the various parts of an orchestra each play an essential role in creating beautiful music”

What’s Wrong with the “Integrative Oncology” Paper?

Honestly, when I first saw the title “Integrative Oncology” I felt hopeful. I thought perhaps this paper would offer helpful information to those suffering from cancer, or to those who dedicate their lives to working with people with cancer. Instead, I found bias, misrepresentation, and outright twisting of the facts and outcomes of studies. This paper clearly states that it has been peer-reviewed, but given the many errors, I find that difficult to believe.

I find it strange that the subtext delineates “integrative approaches (e.g., lifestyle, meditation, yoga, acupuncture, massage)” but overlooks botanical and nutritional medicines, which are widely used as adjunct therapies in cancer protocols. I have no idea what the underlying agenda is in this paper. Why would scientifically and clinically proven modalities be dismissed or overlooked when they offer the potential for help without harm?