Frustrated

I don't always get to talk to my chemo doctor directly,
and this is one of those times I am finding it incredibly
frustrating.

I remember once someone in the area of nutrition
telling me whatever I ate was likely to be OK, as long
as I knew my WBC (white blood count) was OK.

A friend of mine was surprised by this, as both of his
parents were advised to stay away from raw foods
when they were getting chemo.  The idea was that
if something was on the foods, their body might not
be able to fight it.

There was no "issue" until they changed my chemo.
There may still be no issue, but I can't tell because I
don't understand how things work, and if there is a
concern.

When I was on the chemo I was on before I was
always getting the Neulasta shot every two weeks.
The blood work that they would do before chemo
the second week would indicate a need to get the
shot.

As you may remember, this is a shot that isn't exactly
pleasant, but for what it is supposed to do, I respect it.

Having said that, my chemo schedule has no changed,
and I am finding myself at a two week mark that has
no chemo scheduled.  As a result I have been asking
the question now for a bit about whether or not I
should be getting the shot on my week off.

What I can't seem to find out is whether or not it is
warranted or needed or even something to be concerned
about.  At the same time, the answer I keep getting is
that when it is my week off I won't be getting the shot.

That doesn't answer the freakin' question.

I said to the person that I was speaking with that
maybe I wasn't explaining myself very well.  And
I might not have been.  I don't really know what to
ask, or what I need to be concerned about, and I
tried to convey that, too.

It seems that for a week they don't have any concerns
about my WBC.  But what if it dips into the low
range?  I don't want to be more vulnerable to getting
sick.  That would NOT be a good thing at any time,
but especially not now.

Part of the answer I got was that "if" I showed signs
of getting sick, then they would request my bloodwork
be done.  What is a sign?  Where would I go?  What
might have been proactively dealt with becomes
something I would be at the effect of.

Does it make sense to do it that way?    If so, I wish
they would do a better job of explaining to me what
could happen if I didn't get the shot on my off week.

It feels like something is missing here.

It may be kind of ironic for them that it may seem that
I am asking for this shot.  I am usually one to want to
stay away from the medical stuff.  And the fact is that
I really am not.  If they would just tell me something
that would be helpful, then I would stop asking the
question.

I started to look online for things that can naturally
help my WBC, and plan to speak with someone in
nutrition.  Maybe they can help me ease my mind a
bit.

For as much as I love these guys that I work with,
I wonder how much they are used to someone
questioning things.  It seems to me that often people
will just go with the program the doctor suggests.  I
would imagine some wouldn't have even thought
about what I have.   And the fact is, I would rather
not think about these things, but it just seems to me
to make sense that I would want to be responsible
to myself.

When it came to my platelets, no one said anything
to me.  They were watching them, and watching
them mostly go down.  They said nothing about it.

It just so happened that I mentioned my count to an
naturopathic doctor who told me I should use sesame
oil to help them (2t a day).  When I did what she
said, my counts went up almost 3xs by the next week.

I found out after the fact, that if they had gone down
to half of their lowest point, they would have had to
do a transfusion of platelets, which for whatever
reason, isn't exactly desirable.  Just from the standpoint
of putting something else into my body, it wouldn't
thrill me, either.  But if it is something that can be
so simply avoided, it would make sense that something
should be said...or so I would think!

Is this situation like that?  Maybe not exactly.  But
I can't help but wonder how much of the management
of things might be more reactive than proactive.  If
this happens, then we know how to treat it...rather than
we know how to avoid it so we don't have to think
about treating it.

I am reminded, too, of the time I was in the hospital
a few years back and was told that my liver function
was down.  They told me they didn't know why it
was fine when I came into the hospital, but not then,
other than to say it was likely an antibiotic they were
giving me.

When I heard that, I started to drink as much lemon
juice as I could stomach, knowing that it helps to
cleanse the liver.

The day I was to leave the hospital, the doctor tells
me my liver function seems back to normal (or at least
better) but he didn't know why.  I knew why!  And
I just couldn't help but wonder why a doctor is so
willing to affect my liver with the drugs he gives me,
but doesn't have a clue about something so simple that
can help me help my body get back to its best place.

When I spoke with a naturopath about cleansing my
liver, she seemed to indicate that it might not be the
"best" thing, as the liver was helping the chemo do
its job.  If my liver got cleansed, it might minimize
the efficacy of the treatments.  She suggested that if
I wanted to do something I should do it when my
treatments were over.

That thinking, to me, would suggest, that a western
doctor may want to know about lemon juice from the
standpoint of effectively treating me.  Even if s/he
didn't know that it could help my liver, s/he might
want to know that it might affect the ability of the
drugs given to affect me in ways intended.

*Sigh*  I really don't want to be dealing with this.
I don't feel good.  It is hard to manage being sick
when you don't feel well.