By Gerald W White
In my 17 years in the cancer fight, both as a patient and as a patient mentor, I have never ceased to wonder why patients with similar diseases had different results both in side effects and outcomes even though their treatments were identical. Over the years both physicians and researchers have begun to note that beliefs and attitudes about their disease and changing lifestyles could have a positive effect on the outcome. The question was asked whether a change in attitude relative to certain of life's events (sleep habits, stress, divorce, death of a loved one, problems at work, etc) could favorably affect outcomes. Out of these questions is dawning a new recognition of what has been called the EQ (emotional quotient) and how it could be more important in treating cancer than the IQ.
It is worthwhile to see how attitudes toward the role of the mind in healing have shifted throughout history. Let us briefly take a look at some significant points along the evolutionary path of cancer attitudes.
* Plato wrote that to treat the body without treating the mind was folly.
* The Greek physician Galen, about 140 AD, wrote that emotions have a great effect on the treatment of cancer.
* The mind/body relationship was a recurring theme in all medical books from early times until it began to disappear in the 1800's until its reappearance in the 1980's.
* Dr. Eugene Pendergrast, in his presidential address to the American Cancer Society in 1959, called for research into the role of the power within the mind in treating cancer.
* In 1975, Dr. Herb Benson of Harvard, wrote the landmark work "The Relaxation Response".
* In 1976, Dr. Frank Lawlis published "Imagery and Disease" which reported excellent results from Guided Imagery for cancer treatment.
* In 1981, Ader wrote the first book on psychoneuroimmunology. This book shows how our hopes and fears are directly and indirectly translated into physical health and illness.
* In 1983, there was published in JAMA (Volume 250) that effects of emotions such as grief can take direct neural paths to white cells that cause their activity to be suppressed. The discovery by Candace Pert of Yale that white blood cells have neural receptors provides describes the mechanism by which this is possible. Thus, we have two paths by which the mind can influence the immune system. One is the traditional glandular path through the endocrinal system and the other an instantaneous signal direct from the brain to the receiver antenna on the killer immune cells.
Personal case stories produced along the way are fascinating. Dr. Bruno Klopfer, generally regarded as the father of psycho/physiological medicine, in 1957 reported on the case of a man with metastatic cancer responding to treatment to the then promising drug, Corbyicin in which the patient had absolute confidence. He had a miraculous recovery that lasted until newspapers reported that Corbyicin has been shown to be of questionable value in the treatment of cancer. He then presented worse than before.
Dr. Klopfer, suspecting a strong mental role, told the man that he was then giving him an improved version and, without his knowledge, gave him sterile water with great fanfare. His tumors again went into remission until sometime later when he read that Corbyicin had been totally discredited. He presented in a comatose state and died two weeks later.
Perhaps the landmark text of all was not by a doctor but by a layman, Norman Cousins, then editor of the Saturday Review of Literature. His remarkable story which he titled "The Anatomy of An Illness", is certainly one of the greatest stories documenting the efficacy of triumphant attitudes in defeating an incurable disease ever written.
Such stories are continuing to this very day and increasing in number. Curiously enough, they all bear a startling commonality. This is a rapidly developing saga in which all patients are invited to participate.
Over the years since I have been involved in this work, the pleasantest memories are of those brave, determined individuals who put aside fear and focused on a program of mind/body medicine that ultimately led them down the wonderful path to remission. Counting back, there have been almost 300 such individuals, none of whom paid one thin dime for the experience. Unfortunately, there were countless others who, for a variety of reasons, just could not buy into the notion that mind/body medicine could be an effective approach to dealing with cancer.
As a former patient and member of the "three month club", I think I can well understand this. It seems that cancer patients are literally under siege from passionate suggestions from everyone from outright frauds to sincere well wishers touting some "sure fire" cancer cures. that they can no longer trust happiness. I one time remarked, as my mailbox swelled with this junk, that I couldn't see how cancer had survived as long as it has with all those "sure fire" cures out there. I once quipped in a speech at a symposium that I cannot understand how cancer has survived as long as it has with all those "sure fire cures" out there!
As I reflect on the following case, a thought occurs that might shed some light on the nagging question of why M/B medicine seems to work well for some patients and not so well for others.
This story is close to my heart as it involves someone from my distant past who was once very close to me. Several months ago and right out of the blue, I received an urgent phone call from one Buddy Hedges who was my best friend in high school and roommate in college over 50 years ago. As even the closest of friends are wont to do, we drifted apart over the years and it had been ages since I had contact with him. His daughter Jan had just been diagnosed with breast cancer that had already gone metastatic and he was quite upset.
She was also upset and even tearful that she would not be allowed to raise her children, an emotion that is typical in young mother patients. We spent a lot of time just trying to calm everybody down before we proceeded with an introduction to guided imagery. This I provided from my website as well as personal references right in her neighborhood whom I had successfully helped fight their way to remission. Many in her area had copies of my book and CD's from previous experiences and they were all eager to share. She immediately plunged headlong into three guided imagery sessions a day as I had originally suggested as well as some other means for relaxation therapy.
About three weeks later, I got another call from Buddy. This time he was euphoric. It seems that Jan had just been for more scans and the tumors were rapidly receding. Although I do not recommend this necessarily, she had previously refused chemo therapy. What a wonderful outcome in such a short time.
Experience has brought me to the opinion that it does not take long for the good guys of the immune system to do their job if one could just get them awake and working. Recently I heard from an elderly gentleman, also from the old home town, who reported a similar result with metastatic kidney cancer tumors. Then it came to me that my experiences with those folks who knew me " back when" were pushing 100% successful results.
The next question becomes, does this have any bearing on why, in a larger venue, some get well and others don't? Why does it seem to work better in patients from the home town than in the world in general? I now think I am beginning to understand the reason for this and I think it is reflected in the attitudes of the patient and those around him. It should not be implied that I consider myself a "healer". No, I am merely a conduit for information and some very good news.
Every time I hear a patient described as having a "good attitude", I try to ascertain exactly what is meant by "good attitude". Does it mean, for example, that they are fully compliant in everything their doctor tells them and never cloud the air with questions, or are they perhaps the more determined type who demand to know all they can about what is going on and have no hesitation to ask questions or go for second opinions if the answers they get are not satisfactory? I have come to believe that the sum total of all the little attitudes adds up to putting them into one of three "attitude categories".
* Negative attitude: "I have cancer and I will be dead in a year and nothing can be done to change it".
* Positive attitude: "I have cancer and that's alright because I will be fine in a year".
* Survivor's attitude: "I have cancer and I may or may not be dead in a year and the outcome depends to a great extent on what actions I take in the here and now".
Now it is obvious that the first attitude is bad and no more need to be said about this self fulfilling prophecy of doom. The second is not too much better because it totally disregards the seriousness of the disease. The third, on the other hand is the attitude of a warrior and woe be unto any cancer cell that gets in the way of such a determined person. Every case of "miracle remissions" that I have ever dealt with is characterized by the warrior attitude.
It appears that one of the significant factors in all the many successful home town cases I have worked with is the credibility that comes from a long lasting acquaintance. This can easily translate into confidence and from confidence to the survivor's attitude. Buddy knew full well that I was for real and that I had his families best interest at heart. It seems to be important that people come to feel that way about me (or anyone else for that matter) if they are to have any confidence in what I say.
Buddy also knew that I have never taken a dime of patients money for helping them as best I can. This confidence level is extremely difficult to convey to strangers although it can, has and should be done. I have learned to never make the first move in contacting a cancer patient. It is usually a waste of both our times and for good reason. Patients see far too many snake oil peddlers out for their money. The cancer wars bring out quintessential greed and avarice from all levels of exploitation, not excluding the halls of medicine.
The best way to develop a winning attitude is to become information based in all aspects of your disease. I realize this is easier said than done but the fact is, it can, and should, be done. One of the ways I have sought to deal with the credibility problem is to construct as patient friendly a website as I know how to do that shows patients how to get good information and, from personal examples of others who have done so, to extract realistic, information based hope.
This can be viewed at my website and I would encourage the reader to do so. It is not just my story there, but many others from experiences with many forms of cancer. These people welcome contacts from any and all. There is a suggested reading list that, if pursued will bring the patient quickly up to state of the art knowledge in the exciting new field of psychoneuroimmunology. Having seen this great long word, perhaps the reader will understand why we just call it mind/body medicine like the ancient Greeks did and let it go at that.
Those of us who have had numerous successes with mind/body medicine are typically viewed with suspicion that is very close to disdain by a skeptical public. On the other hand, an oncologist who has treated 100 patients with a particular cancer and lost 95 of them seems to enjoy the credibility accorded a specialist in the field. A funny thing about credibility is that it sometimes seems to defy logic.
If you find yourselves on the hurting end of the cancer stick, dare to reach out for information based hope. Knowledge is still power and ignorance is even deadlier when it comes to dealing with cancer. Develop that warriors attitude that allows you to take charge of your healing program for if you don't, somebody else will, and you probably won't like the outcome!
In my 17 years in the cancer fight, both as a patient and as a patient mentor, I have never ceased to wonder why patients with similar diseases had different results both in side effects and outcomes even though their treatments were identical. Over the years both physicians and researchers have begun to note that beliefs and attitudes about their disease and changing lifestyles could have a positive effect on the outcome. The question was asked whether a change in attitude relative to certain of life's events (sleep habits, stress, divorce, death of a loved one, problems at work, etc) could favorably affect outcomes. Out of these questions is dawning a new recognition of what has been called the EQ (emotional quotient) and how it could be more important in treating cancer than the IQ.
It is worthwhile to see how attitudes toward the role of the mind in healing have shifted throughout history. Let us briefly take a look at some significant points along the evolutionary path of cancer attitudes.
* Plato wrote that to treat the body without treating the mind was folly.
* The Greek physician Galen, about 140 AD, wrote that emotions have a great effect on the treatment of cancer.
* The mind/body relationship was a recurring theme in all medical books from early times until it began to disappear in the 1800's until its reappearance in the 1980's.
* Dr. Eugene Pendergrast, in his presidential address to the American Cancer Society in 1959, called for research into the role of the power within the mind in treating cancer.
* In 1975, Dr. Herb Benson of Harvard, wrote the landmark work "The Relaxation Response".
* In 1976, Dr. Frank Lawlis published "Imagery and Disease" which reported excellent results from Guided Imagery for cancer treatment.
* In 1981, Ader wrote the first book on psychoneuroimmunology. This book shows how our hopes and fears are directly and indirectly translated into physical health and illness.
* In 1983, there was published in JAMA (Volume 250) that effects of emotions such as grief can take direct neural paths to white cells that cause their activity to be suppressed. The discovery by Candace Pert of Yale that white blood cells have neural receptors provides describes the mechanism by which this is possible. Thus, we have two paths by which the mind can influence the immune system. One is the traditional glandular path through the endocrinal system and the other an instantaneous signal direct from the brain to the receiver antenna on the killer immune cells.
Personal case stories produced along the way are fascinating. Dr. Bruno Klopfer, generally regarded as the father of psycho/physiological medicine, in 1957 reported on the case of a man with metastatic cancer responding to treatment to the then promising drug, Corbyicin in which the patient had absolute confidence. He had a miraculous recovery that lasted until newspapers reported that Corbyicin has been shown to be of questionable value in the treatment of cancer. He then presented worse than before.
Dr. Klopfer, suspecting a strong mental role, told the man that he was then giving him an improved version and, without his knowledge, gave him sterile water with great fanfare. His tumors again went into remission until sometime later when he read that Corbyicin had been totally discredited. He presented in a comatose state and died two weeks later.
Perhaps the landmark text of all was not by a doctor but by a layman, Norman Cousins, then editor of the Saturday Review of Literature. His remarkable story which he titled "The Anatomy of An Illness", is certainly one of the greatest stories documenting the efficacy of triumphant attitudes in defeating an incurable disease ever written.
Such stories are continuing to this very day and increasing in number. Curiously enough, they all bear a startling commonality. This is a rapidly developing saga in which all patients are invited to participate.
Over the years since I have been involved in this work, the pleasantest memories are of those brave, determined individuals who put aside fear and focused on a program of mind/body medicine that ultimately led them down the wonderful path to remission. Counting back, there have been almost 300 such individuals, none of whom paid one thin dime for the experience. Unfortunately, there were countless others who, for a variety of reasons, just could not buy into the notion that mind/body medicine could be an effective approach to dealing with cancer.
As a former patient and member of the "three month club", I think I can well understand this. It seems that cancer patients are literally under siege from passionate suggestions from everyone from outright frauds to sincere well wishers touting some "sure fire" cancer cures. that they can no longer trust happiness. I one time remarked, as my mailbox swelled with this junk, that I couldn't see how cancer had survived as long as it has with all those "sure fire" cures out there. I once quipped in a speech at a symposium that I cannot understand how cancer has survived as long as it has with all those "sure fire cures" out there!
As I reflect on the following case, a thought occurs that might shed some light on the nagging question of why M/B medicine seems to work well for some patients and not so well for others.
This story is close to my heart as it involves someone from my distant past who was once very close to me. Several months ago and right out of the blue, I received an urgent phone call from one Buddy Hedges who was my best friend in high school and roommate in college over 50 years ago. As even the closest of friends are wont to do, we drifted apart over the years and it had been ages since I had contact with him. His daughter Jan had just been diagnosed with breast cancer that had already gone metastatic and he was quite upset.
She was also upset and even tearful that she would not be allowed to raise her children, an emotion that is typical in young mother patients. We spent a lot of time just trying to calm everybody down before we proceeded with an introduction to guided imagery. This I provided from my website as well as personal references right in her neighborhood whom I had successfully helped fight their way to remission. Many in her area had copies of my book and CD's from previous experiences and they were all eager to share. She immediately plunged headlong into three guided imagery sessions a day as I had originally suggested as well as some other means for relaxation therapy.
About three weeks later, I got another call from Buddy. This time he was euphoric. It seems that Jan had just been for more scans and the tumors were rapidly receding. Although I do not recommend this necessarily, she had previously refused chemo therapy. What a wonderful outcome in such a short time.
Experience has brought me to the opinion that it does not take long for the good guys of the immune system to do their job if one could just get them awake and working. Recently I heard from an elderly gentleman, also from the old home town, who reported a similar result with metastatic kidney cancer tumors. Then it came to me that my experiences with those folks who knew me " back when" were pushing 100% successful results.
The next question becomes, does this have any bearing on why, in a larger venue, some get well and others don't? Why does it seem to work better in patients from the home town than in the world in general? I now think I am beginning to understand the reason for this and I think it is reflected in the attitudes of the patient and those around him. It should not be implied that I consider myself a "healer". No, I am merely a conduit for information and some very good news.
Every time I hear a patient described as having a "good attitude", I try to ascertain exactly what is meant by "good attitude". Does it mean, for example, that they are fully compliant in everything their doctor tells them and never cloud the air with questions, or are they perhaps the more determined type who demand to know all they can about what is going on and have no hesitation to ask questions or go for second opinions if the answers they get are not satisfactory? I have come to believe that the sum total of all the little attitudes adds up to putting them into one of three "attitude categories".
* Negative attitude: "I have cancer and I will be dead in a year and nothing can be done to change it".
* Positive attitude: "I have cancer and that's alright because I will be fine in a year".
* Survivor's attitude: "I have cancer and I may or may not be dead in a year and the outcome depends to a great extent on what actions I take in the here and now".
Now it is obvious that the first attitude is bad and no more need to be said about this self fulfilling prophecy of doom. The second is not too much better because it totally disregards the seriousness of the disease. The third, on the other hand is the attitude of a warrior and woe be unto any cancer cell that gets in the way of such a determined person. Every case of "miracle remissions" that I have ever dealt with is characterized by the warrior attitude.
It appears that one of the significant factors in all the many successful home town cases I have worked with is the credibility that comes from a long lasting acquaintance. This can easily translate into confidence and from confidence to the survivor's attitude. Buddy knew full well that I was for real and that I had his families best interest at heart. It seems to be important that people come to feel that way about me (or anyone else for that matter) if they are to have any confidence in what I say.
Buddy also knew that I have never taken a dime of patients money for helping them as best I can. This confidence level is extremely difficult to convey to strangers although it can, has and should be done. I have learned to never make the first move in contacting a cancer patient. It is usually a waste of both our times and for good reason. Patients see far too many snake oil peddlers out for their money. The cancer wars bring out quintessential greed and avarice from all levels of exploitation, not excluding the halls of medicine.
The best way to develop a winning attitude is to become information based in all aspects of your disease. I realize this is easier said than done but the fact is, it can, and should, be done. One of the ways I have sought to deal with the credibility problem is to construct as patient friendly a website as I know how to do that shows patients how to get good information and, from personal examples of others who have done so, to extract realistic, information based hope.
This can be viewed at my website and I would encourage the reader to do so. It is not just my story there, but many others from experiences with many forms of cancer. These people welcome contacts from any and all. There is a suggested reading list that, if pursued will bring the patient quickly up to state of the art knowledge in the exciting new field of psychoneuroimmunology. Having seen this great long word, perhaps the reader will understand why we just call it mind/body medicine like the ancient Greeks did and let it go at that.
Those of us who have had numerous successes with mind/body medicine are typically viewed with suspicion that is very close to disdain by a skeptical public. On the other hand, an oncologist who has treated 100 patients with a particular cancer and lost 95 of them seems to enjoy the credibility accorded a specialist in the field. A funny thing about credibility is that it sometimes seems to defy logic.
If you find yourselves on the hurting end of the cancer stick, dare to reach out for information based hope. Knowledge is still power and ignorance is even deadlier when it comes to dealing with cancer. Develop that warriors attitude that allows you to take charge of your healing program for if you don't, somebody else will, and you probably won't like the outcome!
Post a Comment