The Dog Cancer Survival Guide (30 page)

I am well aware of the contentious debates in the public arena over vaccine use, and this information is not meant to throw oil on the fire. I am not anti-vaccine, and I admit that there is no study yet that proves vaccinated dogs are more prone to cancer than unvaccinated dogs. What we do know is that the polarity shift is real in vaccinated human infants and mice, and we know that its effects last into adulthood in vaccinated mice.

So what does this imply for vaccinating our dogs? It’s tricky. We obviously should exercise caution when vaccinating infant dogs, but unfortunately, it is hard to determine exactly when infancy ends and childhood begins. Still, I have changed my policy in my own practice to take these studies into account. I no longer recommend vaccinating puppies at six weeks of age; instead, I suggest holding off on the first vaccination until the dog is ten weeks old. This gives the dog’s cancer-patrolling cells a little more time to mature, and hopefully preserves their functions into adulthood. In the meantime, puppies can be quarantined at home until after the last vaccination is given, so their exposure to infectious diseases is minimized. When I first graduated from veterinary school, we gave booster shots every year; now, I prefer to give them every three years (now the standard of care). I don’t give booster shots after the age of seven unless a titer test shows one is needed. Also, I don’t recommend vaccinating against anything that does not directly threaten the dog. For example, rabies is nonexistent in Hawaii, so I do not administer rabies vaccines to dogs who will never leave the islands.

Many readers cringe when they read this section, because they may have been vaccinating their dogs throughout their lifetimes. Keep in mind that I am cautious due to my research, and some vets, even after hearing my reasons for starting the puppy series at ten weeks, may think I am overly cautious. Even so, the studies I’ve seen make me believe that our current policy of “infant” vaccination for puppies will eventually change.

The link between chronic stress, depression, and illness in humans is clear; so much so that there is an entire field of science devoted to exploring the interactions between psychology, illness, and immunity. I’m interested in psychoneuroimmunology (known in popular culture as the mind-body connection) because the emotional bond between dogs and their human companions is undeniable. Since dogs are often models for scientists who study human cancer treatments, it’s logical to think that there may be some value to applying mind-body tools to canine cancer.

One of the most important insights I’ve gleaned from this field is the recognition of how important overall attitude is when it comes to health. According to a French study involving human patients with head and neck cancer, optimists live 10% longer than pessimists. Optimism is not just a more pleasant state of mind; it actually gives you a significant edge over your cynical neighbors. It is logical to think the same may be true for our dogs.

Another important insight I’d like to share is how human children who have cancer experience illness symptoms. According to researchers, children with cancer don’t describe their symptoms as if they are separate issues. They don’t say “I have a headache,” or “my stomach hurts.” Instead children report global feelings: “I feel bad” or “I hurt” or “I feel sick.”No matter what individual symptoms they may have, their overall disposition could be summed up in two words: bummed out. I suspect dogs feel the same way: sick “all over.”

If dogs are similar to kids in the way that they respond to illness, then I have another insight from pediatric medicine to share with you. There seems to be a parent-child emotional feedback loop that plays a big role in cancer care. Children can pick up on their parents’ attitudes about their illnesses and adopt them without question. If, for example, a mother acts very upset when her child vomits, the child may automatically become upset the next time he vomits. As you’ll see in a moment, emotional upset and depression actively interfere with the body’s ability to heal. When parents take a calmer, more “let’s get it done” attitude, children seem to be calmer and get over their pains and symptoms more quickly.

In my experience, the dogs who live the longest and have the best quality of life are the dogs whose guardians take this “matter of fact,” pragmatic approach to treatments. Your expectation that your dog can handle the challenge of cancer sets up a positive feedback loop between the two of you.

Contributing positive emotions to the feedback loop is not just about maintaining an optimistic outlook or keeping your mood up. Positive emotions actually affect the body on a physical level. When it is calm, the human brain sends signals to the digestive tract to process food, relax the muscles, and keep the heartbeat normal. The body gets to “rest and digest.”

When stress comes, the human brain releases an avalanche of hormones and chemical signals to help the body deal with the problem. For example, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol are released in levels high enough to raise blood sugar, open the lungs, make the heart beat faster and stronger, and send more blood to the major muscle groups. These activities organize the body for “fight or flight.”

Any stressful event can trigger a fight or flight response. A saber tooth tiger can trigger this response, but so can financial hardship, relationship issues, or dealing with dog cancer. Over the long term, these reactions have serious detrimental effects on the body.

In a study involving children with cancer, those with feelings of low self-worth had higher levels of the stress hormone, epinephrine, and children who lacked social support from friends had higher levels of norepinephrine. These children also showed a weakened immune response to cancer, possibly because stress and depression is associated with decreased activity in the immune system’s cancer-fighting cytotoxic T-cells and natural killer cells. The stress hormone epinephrine has also been shown to switch off apoptosis in cancer cells. In other words, if the mind is under stress, cancer cells have a better chance of multiplying out of control. If your dog is under emotional stress, there is a chance that the cancer-fighting cells in his immune system are being suppressed and that apoptosis is being switched off!

There is more than enough evidence available in human medicine to convince me that managing stress and depression are a crucial component of cancer care in every species. The more confident and relaxed your dog feels, the fewer stress hormones are released, the more cancer-killing immune cells are able to do their work, and the fewer apoptosis genes are switched off. Best of all, many activities that boost your dog’s self-esteem are free and fun for you both. Giving your dog lots of opportunities to feel good is my reasoning behind several of the emotional management exercises in
Chapter 2
and Step Five in Full Spectrum cancer care, Brain Chemistry Modification, which is covered in
Chapter 15
.

You may have heard of free radicals (molecules which react with and injure other molecules until eventually they change DNA enough to cause cancer), because they’ve been mentioned in the press many times over the last several decades. The hype about free radicals partly inspired the huge jump in sales of antioxidant vitamins (A, C, E, etc.), which neutralize free radicals in test tubes.

As is often true, what works in test tubes (
in vitro
) does not always work in the complicated real world of the body (
in vivo
). To understand how and why to use antioxidants to treat your dog’s cancer – and how and why
not
to – it is important to understand just a few of the technical molecular details.

You probably remember from high school science courses that cells are made up of molecules, each of which is made up of even tinier atoms. Atoms have a center, called a nucleus, and minuscule electrons, which surround the nucleus. Every type of atom (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, etc.) has a fixed number of electrons it needs in order to be stable. Usually, this number is an even number, and most molecules are made up of two or more atoms “sharing” an even number of electrons so they can be stable together.

If a molecule is missing an electron, or has an extra one, it becomes unstable and reacts easily with other atoms, often in unpredictable and almost imperceptibly fast ways. This unstable, reactive molecule is called a free radical. A free radical seeks to regain stability, so it either gives an electron to or steals an electron from, a neighboring molecule. Typically it will steal an electron. If it succeeds, the now-stable free radical has created a new free radical in its neighbor. This new free radical now pursues stability and creates another free radical, and on and on. This molecular activity, if left unchecked, can lead to damaged cell DNA and genetic mutations. For this reason, free radicals are thought to cause cancer, along with a host of other illnesses.

Although this may seem like a logical conclusion, some research leads us to question whether it’s really that simple. It’s true that carcinogens that enter the body can be free radicals or can cause increases in free radicals inside cells. In theory, those free radicals could cause mutations in cells, which could lead to cancer. Unfortunately, some of the real world evidence just doesn’t fit.

Free radicals are a normal part of everyday living in the body. When normal cells need energy, they burn body fuel stores using a process called oxidation, and free radicals are a by-product of oxidation. At any given time, normal cells are creating free radicals in this way, and the more energy that’s needed for a given task (a mile run, for example), the more free radicals are generated. Normal cells are able to clear out these free radicals, using several different methods.

Cancer cells generate free radicals, too, but in far greater numbers, because of their tremendous growth rate. They are engaged in nearly constant metabolism: multiplying, growing, building new tissue, building new blood vessels, and metabolizing energy. All of this activity creates far more free radicals, and they are not as good at clearing them out.

Free radicals are unpredictable by nature, and when enough accumulate, they can do something quite impressive: switch on apoptosis genes and cause a cell to commit suicide. Ironically, cancer cells pose a danger to themselves by generating so many free radicals!

Some immune system cells create free radicals to target cancer cells in this way, and this is the mechanism behind some conventional chemotherapy agents and even some nutraceuticals, such as high doses of luteolin and apigenin (see
Chapter 12
). These
pro-oxidant therapies
introduce even more free radicals into an already unstable environment. The result can be that apoptosis genes kick in and kill the cancer naturally.

I hope it’s clear by now that free radicals
could
theoretically cause cancer, as we once thought, but they can
definitely
help kill cancer, when enough accumulate within a cancer cell. They’re not always bad.

This distinction is important, because there has been a tremendous amount of media hype around free radicals, in part because vitamin manufacturers wanted to sell more antioxidants (which neutralize them). Saying that a vitamin helps to prevent or cure cancer by neutralizing free radicals is a powerful selling point. The problem is that antioxidant supplements don’t always prevent cancer, and in some cases, may even help cause it. Let’s take a closer look at antioxidants.

Antioxidants are stable molecules; so stable that they can afford to donate an electron to a free radical. Once the free radical takes the electron, it becomes stable and stops creating new ones. The sooner antioxidants arrive on the scene the sooner free radicals are neutralized.

Vitamin C and vitamin E are well-known antioxidants, as are several other vitamins. The body can also produce antioxidant enzymes that neutralize free radicals in the same way dietary antioxidants do, but instead of using vitamins, these enzymes use minerals such as copper, manganese, and selenium. These are the body’s natural antioxidant systems. If you have run a mile, it would be a great thing to have enough of these vitamins, minerals, and enzymes in your body to counteract all those extra free radicals and keep you in balance.

Vitamins and minerals are found in food, especially in brightly colored fruits and vegetables. Studies have shown that people who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables have a lower risk for cancer. We used to think this was because of the high level of antioxidants in these foods, but researchers have recently found that other substances in fruits and vegetables – such as naturally occurring anti-inflammatory compounds and chemicals that modulate genes – may have a much
bigger
role in cancer prevention than the antioxidants.

Antioxidants may even hurt the body, under certain circumstances. Ingesting mega-doses of certain antioxidants – which once seemed like a good “natural” strategy to fight cancer – now seems like a bad idea. “Boosting the immune system” in a body that is severely compromised by cancer may not work out as well as it can in the sanitary environment of the test tube.

One long-term study (seven and a half years) looked at the use of dietary levels of antioxidants (vitamins A, E, selenium and zinc) in humans, and found that there was no benefit in cancer prevention or increase in longevity. A secondary analysis looked at the data and found that there actually was a reduction in cancer development, but only in men.

In another study, smokers who took high doses of antioxidants (vitamin A and alpha tocopherol) actually experienced higher lung cancer rates. This mystifying result really punched a hole in the theory that antioxidants always help prevent or manage cancer. Clearly, dosing with mega-doses of certain antioxidants could do more harm than good. It seems that grouping all antioxidants into one category is not helpful and leads to faulty assumptions. It is preferable to look at each antioxidant independently and evaluate its effects separately.