Beza1422 wrote:rp1954 ... regards to your professional opinion and recommendations.
I'm mostly tired and retired here folks. 11 years is a long time. So don't count on my timely presence and responses.
I don't have professional medical opinions, just personal ones.
Most of my discussions are here, on the board, not via email.
People who just show up for help without much conversation are at a disadvantage for help - we are not mentalists.
For me, no blood numbers - no idea.
Frankly people slow on getting the blood numbers trotted out (privacy, insurance, $, or "dr No knows best" problems) are probably too far behind be very successful with the situational demands of a comprehensive alternative medicine approach.
This is not a sport with some loose plays tried, it is an attentive war of extermination. For us, a long one - the short version wasn't nice.
We had to do many numbers again, again, again, and again to gain or keep control, and to personalize them for various phenomena.
Missing the early data complicates things, and misses chances.
Each shot you take should be carefully aimed and tracked, by the numbers.
(different kinds of number sets apply so an initially broad net is a good idea)
An example:
Newbies here often blindly bank on early cimetidine tx's and CA199's published odds (high CA199+CSLEX1 is pretty common for CRC) but the population here is different, the odds seem reversed with an amazing percentage of ultralow CA199's (pretreatment peak CA199 under 2) who could not possibly benefit from cimetidine. So many times I ask, people blow CA199 blood marker off ($,dr) and then find out they are ultralow(UL) on CA199 later - I think the UL% that tried CIM here is over 3x normal CRC population (7-10%). Nevermind simply below median CA199. CA199 is often a difficult marker series, less informative, pricier than CEA too. But that first early (near dx) CA199, can be a very valuable one.