Chemotherapy for the lips

I've had a great summer, so I can't really complain about much. But a visit to my dermatologist has me coating my lower lip with a chemo cream to kill the pre cancer cells. At 55 years, my lower lip has been through a lot so it wasn't a big surprise. But it seems like I should have sores like my Dr. showed me in those lovely photos they show you, but after 5 days I have none so far. I need to keep this up for 4 weeks total so I need to be patient I guess. The sores only show up with pre cancerous cells if I understand correctly? I guess I will find out in about 3 more weeks.

So where can you find that white zinc oxide cream to put on your nose and lips. Isn't that the best SPF coverage you can get. Dr. Gave me some clear SPF 70.

I suspect you can find zinc oxide cream in Walgreen's. If not, a search on Amazon showed a lot of sources.

Thanks Gershon, but everywhere I have looked all they have is the CLEAR stuff. Unless I want to put the stuff for diaper rash on my lips...which I am not ready to do yet . What I am looking for is that '60's white zinc oxide look on the nose and lip.


Ah, just figured it out. I need to use sunblock instead of sunscreen in the search parameters. Got it.

Actually, the diaper rash (40%) is the highest zinc protection you can find. And after all, it hasn't been previously used on baby bottoms or anything!

As long as it doesn't give me "flash-backs" to my diaper changing days, maybe I'll give it a try dkramalc.

Saw the dermatologist today. Since we were not seeing enough of a response on the cream, she hit me with can of freeze-em-off. Boy that burns, but then it's over. The bonus is I still have my $400 tube of chemo-cream...I guess that's a bonus , Dr. says I probably get to use it on something else. Looking like I'm becoming the next poster child for why you should be putting on sun block every day.

My oldest daughter-in-law had a goodly portion of her upper lip removed due to skin cancer last spring, which has left me pretty paranoid about sun protection. It's a tribute to her surgeons that her scarring is quite minimal. She works for a large city parks department so is outdoors most of the day.

Ha! I guess that not having had kids let me avoid those "flashbacks". It is awfully greasy, though.

A nice brand of lip sunscreen for general use is LipCotz, but the desitin or desitin clone might be better for skin that's recovering from chemo/freezing/whatever.

I've taken to using Aveda lip block, DeVita upf 30+ body block on my face for everyday use (i.e. not hiking or doing lots of outside stuff) since it's zinc but invisible, with Tropical Sands UPF 50 on my neck and backs of hands (it's kinda whitish, but my neck is pretty reddened from sun damage over the years, so it evens things out). For more prolonged or sweaty sun exposure, I haven't really decided but so far it's the Neutrogena Age Shield Face (less stinky and nicer consistency than the regular one) upf 70.

And yeah, I'm still worrying about the "next one". OM, that's great that your daughter-in-law's surgeon did such a good job on such a sensitive area. Having part of my lip removed would be close to my worst nightmare (being a wind musician)! So far my area of worst damage is on or around my nose...

I've had a handful of basil cell carcinoma spots removed from my face, as well as dozens of pre-cancerous actinic keratosis spots, and I'm only 44. I have a top notch dermatologist (have been through several), and she's recommended that I use any sunblock that's SPF 30+ and, most importantly, that the active ingredients are titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide. The research I've read suggests the same, so I've been following that regimen for the past few years to prevent further sun damage.

I'm guessing the cream you're referring to is Aldara (imiquimod). I've had great success with that stuff, though I know there can be some negative side effects.

Hats and sun block from now on!

You might want to look into alkalizing your body chemistry. There's a formula for maple syrup and baking soda that will do that.

The theory is that cancerous cells live and grow on refined sugars, and that they die if your body is on the alkaline side of the PH scale. Basically, when you mix the honey with baking soda you're feeding the cancer cells with sugar laced with what is poison to them, but they can't resist it.

I know someone who was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer last year. He quit chemo after one treatment because it was killing him (his words), started the maple syrup and baking soda instead, and is now completely cancer free (took about 8-10 months). His doctor's father, and his own sister, both died from lung cancer while going through the standard treatments while he refused and did the alkalizing instead.

This is also touted as a preventative, so keep that in mind. His wife gave me the recipe and instructions for how they prepared it, and the dosages, as well as some notes on the results. I have them sitting on my desk here, if you want them I'll copy and send them to you.

In any case, stay away from refined sugars from now on, use raw honey as a sweetener instead, or maybe stevia.

THC has also been shown to kill cancer cells, so you might want to get a card for that too.

In either case, neither of those two treatments will kill you, but doing nothing might, so please look into it, and remember, treating cancer is a multi-billion dollar industry here, and doctors and big pharma cannot make any money off of prescribing either of those treatments, so they will never be studied for their effectiveness or prescribed because there is no profit in it.

doctors and big pharma cannot make any money off of prescribing either of those treatments, so they will never be studied for their effectiveness or prescribed

I agree with you that big pharma bankrolls the great majority of clinical trials and studies and they will never, ever pay for a trial or study of this treatment. The government does pay for some studies, and this treatment, if proved effective would undoubtedly save the federal government many tens of billions of dollars a year, so there's a wee chance it could slip through the conventional mindset of the CDC and get studied.

I think it is wrong to say all doctors are so strongly motivated by profiting off their patients that they would never prescribe this treatment, if it were shown to be even marginally effective. All too many doctors become fixated on the financial rewards of their practise, partly because they are not selected into med school based on the mental qualities required to deal compassionately with the ill, so many of them lack these qualities. But a signifigantly large number of them are good, conscientious people. You have to look for them, but they are there.

You are right that are not really at fault. As far as I know all doctors have their hands tied somewhat by the AMA who will punish them if they prescribe a treatment that is not approved by the FDA.

Many doctors have their hands tied further by the corporate health care firms they work for, where they are very much expected to generate revenue when they sign on.

Doctors do what they've learned and are allowed to do. It's not all bad, much of it is great. But you need to do more than just expect a doctor to fix you. This is serious stuff we're talking about here.

It's really very easy to alkalize. Eat some asparagus a few times a week and your good. The baking soda/maple syrup is a treatment used to kill cancers fast, taken in smaller doses it's a preventative, like asparagus.

I don't take the baking soda/maple syrup myself. I do eat asparagus, eat very few sweets and never add refined sugar to anything, and I brush my teeth with baking soda. I've been doing that for decades though, long before I ever heard of alkalizing. I do it because I love asparagus, get to feeling crappy if I eat too much sugar, and hate the taste of toothpaste. If it ever happens that's not been enough I'll mix up a batch of that stuff and start taking it.

We have some great holistic health pros here that own health food stores. They're all licensed doctors, but they've gone on to holistic methods. You can find them almost anywhere. I'm sure there are many in the San Diego area. Some of them are amazing at healing people and they'll tell you if you need a traditional treatment. Most important, they will tell you what you can do to help your body heal and prevent things from getting worse. I put as much weight on their advice as I do traditional medicine.

Interesting topic we have drifted into. I am just procrastinating a little before I load up to drive to the mountains for Christmas, so I'll keep it short. I have a good Dr., but his partner could care less about me and occasionally I get him. My Dr. has some limitation for sure, but given the current state of the medical industry, I think he is doing the best he can. Case in point is with high cholesterol, they wanted me on Lipitor and I did it my way with mostly cardio exercise. I think nowdays, if you really care, you need to do the research yourself...and its hard to do for many topics. The sugar issue I've known about. Here is another large chunk of info contained in a documentary and companion book called "Forks Over Knives". Basically, It pushes a plant-based diet...I know I spoiled the plot, sorry. But also contained within this are some of the results of the China Study on diet and implication on weight loss and long term health. Personally most of the results are not really surprising. But, these studies do contain great documentation of cause and effect with diet.


One of my brothers-in-law just passed from cancer. The eldest brother and wife are a Dr. and nurse and they have since embraced the logic of "Forks Over Knives" after the other brothers passing. When we used to talk about health care, I could tell they were not happy with some of my views on personal health, and we still have many differences but our views on diet are much closer now. Sometimes it takes a major event to change old habits. I know I still struggle with stuff I think I know better about.

IF you haven't seen it, check out Forks Over Knives.

btw, I am going to be eating some meat this Christmas. I just eat a lot less now. Either way, Merry Christmas to you all,

Chris

Just to clarify, I haven't seen an MD in over a decade, but I have seen a naturopath and a chiropractor many times in that period. Luckily for me, my ailments are usually quite simple and straightforward and well within the purview of these practitioners. I trust them.

I also agree that it is vital that we act responsiby by forming and following habits designed to keep us healthy and avoiding those which usually lead to poor health. The basics of this are so clear that everyone knows them: exercise, eat a balanced diet, go easy on the legal drugs like alcohol and caffeine, and wash your hands. Basic stuff, but not always easy.

But, as the OP reminds us, our bodies are complex and they can go haywire on us, even if we lead a 'healthy lifestyle'. At that point, medical help is necessary. Getting the right help requires patience and luck. There are few silver bullets and huge quantities of conflicting information. It can be quite a maze. I wish nothing but the best to anyone who enters that maze. It can be a confusing place to be in.

Over the years I've read many articles and opinions about alternative treatments, many that go far to dismiss them. St. John's wort for depression is a great example of a treatment that has been dismissed by the medical industry. Even now, after it has been clinically proven to be as or more effective than Paxil, with none of the ill side effects, they continue to dismiss it because, they say, "You can't trust suppliers to have a consistent potency or quality".

If they had consumers best interests in mind they would leverage their abilities to create and distribute a consistent product, but they don't. Instead, they keep tweaking the molecular structure of these Paxil like drugs so they can get new patents and sell them at much higher prices.

It's clear to me that we really can't trust corporate pharma's consistency either. The recent spat of contaminated drugs linked to meningitis and other serious illnesses, and Johnson's and Johnson's contaminated Tylenol, are very recent examples of why.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case about rather it is legal for big pharma to pay small pharma corporations to NOT make generic drugs with a proven history of effectiveness. I can't see any way we can stretch that behavior to make a case that corporate pharma is doing what's best for consumers. That practice is driven solely by greed. It is naive to think this same greedy behavior is not the driving force behind everything they do.

I will be amazed if the SCOTUS rules against this practice. They'll likely say that we cannot force a company to make a product, therefore we cannot stop them from accepting cash to not make a product. Our own government has a history of paying corporate farmers to not produce.

Crazy times we've been living in.