Tag Archives: breast cancer

Extensive Study casts doubt on value of mammography

Lisa Says: the article this week in the NY Times about this extensive mammogram study’s results gives us more information to make a truly educated decision on how we choose to manage our health. Without intimidation or propganda. Enjoy the Article:
Vast Study Casts Doubts on Value of Mammograms
by GINA KOLATA Feb. 11, 2014 New York [...]

Lisa Says: the article this week in the NY Times about this extensive mammogram study’s results gives us more information to make a truly educated decision on how we choose to manage our health. Without intimidation or propganda. Enjoy the Article:

Vast Study Casts Doubts on Value of Mammograms
by GINA KOLATA Feb. 11, 2014 New York Times

One of the largest and most meticulous studies of mammography ever done, involving 90,000 women and lasting a quarter-century, has added powerful new doubts about the value of the screening test for women of any age.

It found that the death rates from breast cancer and from all causes were the same in women who got mammograms and those who did not. And the screening had harms: One in five cancers found with mammography and treated was not a threat to the woman’s health and did not need treatment such as chemotherapy, surgery or radiation. Continue reading »

Leave a comment

Hit Reset On Cancer Screening: ‘Tests Not Perfect’

Lisa Says:  This Associate Press article appears to give a balanced view of cancer screenings (when likely indicated and when not based on individual circumstances).  The info helps someone make a more informed decision. One of the most compelling quotes, “We can find cancer early. We can reduce the burden of the disease. But along [...]

Lisa Says:  This Associate Press article appears to give a balanced view of cancer screenings (when likely indicated and when not based on individual circumstances).  The info helps someone make a more informed decision. One of the most compelling quotes, “We can find cancer early. We can reduce the burden of the disease. But along the way, we’re learning our tests are not as perfect as we’d like,” says the American Cancer Society’s Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, a longtime screening proponent. “We’re learning that we’re now finding cancer that would in fact never cause harm.”   Enjoy the article.

 Hit Reset On Cancer Screening: ‘Tests Not Perfect’

by The Associated Press WASHINGTON November 7, 2011, 02:35 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — It turns out that catching cancer early isn’t always as important as we thought.

Some tumors are too slow-growing to ever threaten your life. Some are so aggressive that finding them early doesn’t make much difference. And today’s treatments are much better for those somewhere in the middle.

Those complexities are changing the longtime mantra that cancer screening will save your life. In reality, it depends on the type of cancer, the test and who gets checked when.

“We can find cancer early. We can reduce the burden of the disease. But along the way, we’re learning our tests are not as perfect as we’d like,” says the American Cancer Society’s Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, a longtime screening proponent. “We’re learning that we’re now finding cancer that would in fact never cause harm.” Continue reading »

Leave a comment

How words have the power to heal

Lisa Says:  Here’s a CNN article on powerful research on how the body responds physically to spoken words (healing or harmful) and how to use activities such as journaling to improve your health.
How words have the power to heal  By Amanda Enayati, Special to CNN     June 29, 2011
Editor’s note: Freelance writer and breast cancer survivor [...]

Lisa Says:  Here’s a CNN article on powerful research on how the body responds physically to spoken words (healing or harmful) and how to use activities such as journaling to improve your health.

How words have the power to heal  By Amanda Enayati, Special to CNN     June 29, 2011

Editor’s note: Freelance writer and breast cancer survivor Amanda Enayati contributes regularly to CNNHealth.com.

(CNN) — The first thing I did after receiving what is surely one of the top two or three most terrifying medical diagnoses was pick up the telephone to call my husband to tell him to come home, and my brother to ask him to call my parents, because I couldn’t bear their grief as well as my own.

The second thing I did was open a document in Word and name it: The Second Half of My Life.

Putting negative experiences into words seems to have positive physical and psychological effects..And these are the words I wrote in those first few minutes:

You probably wouldn’t believe my life. In a certain light it would read like an encyclopedia of tragedy: revolution, disease, isolation, dysfunction, terrorism, failure and withdrawal. Before you check out, let me also tell you that if you were to meet me, you may think a sunnier person never lived. Continue reading »

Leave a comment

Are Dead Cancer Cells Feeding Cancer’s Spread? UAB Awarded $805,000 Grant to Study the Issue

Rex Says: It will be interesting to see what this research determines, obviously.

Are Dead Cancer Cells Feeding Cancer’s Spread? UAB Awarded $805,000 Grant to Study the Issue
June 10, 2010
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Researchers with the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry have won an $805,000 grant from the [...]

Rex Says: It will be interesting to see what this research determines, obviously.

Are Dead Cancer Cells Feeding Cancer’s Spread? UAB Awarded $805,000 Grant to Study the Issue

June 10, 2010

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Researchers with the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry have won an $805,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program to study whether dead cancer cells left over after treatment encourage cancer’s spread to other parts of the body.

The research centers on examining inactivated or altered genetic material (DNA) left in the body after breast-cancer cells are exposed to chemotherapy. UAB researchers say the resulting altered DNA may be the factor that activates the spread of living cancer cells to distant locations in the body – a deadly process called metastasis – through a specific molecular pathway.

Learning more about this metastasis pathway could lead to major improvements in prevention, treatment and follow-up care for millions of cancer patients, says Katri Selander, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor in the UAB Division of Hematology and Oncology and co-principal researcher on the grant. Continue reading »

Leave a comment

Study shows how radiation causes breast cancer

Lisa Says: This is a hot topic and it is prudent for women to hear ALL the facts before SHE makes a decision about the best choice for screening for her. Thermograms are a radiation free alternative, for instance. I encourage you to review the other posts we have on breast cancer prevention, screening, and treatments. [...]

Lisa Says: This is a hot topic and it is prudent for women to hear ALL the facts before SHE makes a decision about the best choice for screening for her. Thermograms are a radiation free alternative, for instance. I encourage you to review the other posts we have on breast cancer prevention, screening, and treatments. This is an article posted by NaturalNews.com with info to studies done by such as Johns Hopkins.

Study shows how radiation causes breast cancer
Wednesday, June 09, 2010 by: S. L. Baker, features writer    www.naturalnews.com

It’s well-established that exposure to ionizing radiation can trigger mutations and other genetic damage and cause normal cells to become malignant. So it seems amazing how mainstream medicine frequently dismisses the idea that medical imaging tests from mammograms to CT scans could play much of a role in causing breast cancer. Take this example from the web site for Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors:In answer to the question “Is ionizing radiation a cause of breast cancer?”, the Cornell experts say “Yes” and note “.. female breast tissue is highly susceptible to radiation effects.” But then they pooh-pooh the possible hazard from mammography x-rays saying the risk …”should not be a factor in individual decisions to undergo this procedure. The same is true for most diagnostic x-ray procedures.”

If that’s not confusing enough, they turn around and state: “Nonetheless, unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided and continued vigilance is required to ensure that the benefits associated with specific procedures outweigh the future risks.”       Read More…..

Leave a comment

Again, science showing 'Your Genes are NOT your fate"

Lisa Says: more info here supporting our previous post from Dr. Dean Ornish’s work showing that genetic expression is impacted by lifestyle, and his clinical study showed lifestyle changes reversed prostrate cancer (which is very similar to what Rex did to address his cancer naturally). The following is a post at NaturalNews.com on [...]

Lisa Says: more info here supporting our previous post from Dr. Dean Ornish’s work showing that genetic expression is impacted by lifestyle, and his clinical study showed lifestyle changes reversed prostrate cancer (which is very similar to what Rex did to address his cancer naturally). The following is a post at NaturalNews.com on how our exposure to chemicals affects how genes “act in the body”. These epigentic changes are linked to increased risk of Alzheimer’s, breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, Parkinson’s, etc. It’s common sense that the explosion of chronic disease in America is not the result of a genetic mutation in the last 30 years, but lifestyle related. The GREAT new is……….and we have the power to reverse it ! Enjoy the article

Epigenetics: Chemicals Turn Genes On and Off at the Wrong Times
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
NaturalNews.com printable article originally published February 23 2010

(NaturalNews) Scientists are increasingly becoming aware of a new mechanism by which pollutants can damage the health of living organisms — epigenetic changes, in which a chemical changes how a gene is expressed.

While some chemicals are toxic (attacking the body’s systems directly) and others are mutagenic (changing the actual code of an organism’s genes), others do not change the way a gene is written, but instead how it acts in the body.

Epigenetic changes “can lead to increased susceptibility to disease,” said Linda S. Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and of the National Toxicology Program. “The susceptibility persists long after the exposure is gone, even decades later. Glands, organs, and systems can be permanently altered.”

Epigenetic changes have been identified that increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, learning disabilities, Parkinson’s disease and more.

One example was recently uncovered by researchers at the University of Cincinnati, who conducted a study on children in New York City who had been exposed to high levels of air pollutants in the womb. These children had higher rates of asthma than children who had not had such exposure.

Upon performing genetic tests, the researchers found that all the exposed, asthmatic children had a methyl group molecule attached to the ACSL3 gene, causing it to be less active than normal. None of the unexposed children had this molecule attached to their ACSL3 gene.

Researchers have also found epigenetic changes in children conceived through in-vitro fertilization. They believe that the chemicals used to incubate the fertilized eggs before implantation might cause epigenetic changes that lead to the higher rates of abdominal wall defects and cancers observed in such children.

Like mutations, epigenetic effects can be passed on to a person’s offspring.

“There is a huge potential impact from these exposures, partly because the changes may be inherited across generations,” Birnbaum said. “You may be affected by what your mother and grandmother were exposed to during pregnancy.”

Sources for this story include: www.environmentalhealthnews.org.

Leave a comment

Think Before You Pink – Be Informed about Breast Cancer Research

Lisa Says: This is the time of year where you see more pink than Valentine’s Day. Last weekend when we were in DC at the Green Festival, we saw quite a few wearing their pink regalia diligently raising money for breast cancer something. I leave you with two thoughts: First, before you purchase products espousing [...]

Lisa Says: This is the time of year where you see more pink than Valentine’s Day. Last weekend when we were in DC at the Green Festival, we saw quite a few wearing their pink regalia diligently raising money for breast cancer something. I leave you with two thoughts: First, before you purchase products espousing their contributions to breast cancer research, visit http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/ where they have a list of questions to ensure your well intended dollars are getting to the right place AND consider that there are numerous companies that promote breast health with pink ribbons, YET THEIR VERY PRODUCTS ARE LINKED TO CAUSING BREAST CANCER. The short video clip on Eli Lilly was chilling

Second, I still take issue with the fact that with breast cancer having exploded in the country in the last 50 years, we spend billions on genetic research but few funds promoting life style education and supportive changes that we KNOW prevent not just breast cancers, but most cancers.  Are we really saying that America has undergone a genetic change in the last 50 years? or is lifestyle having an impact?

I am reposting a previous entry from Rex commenting on an article from Naturalnews.com.

Rex Says: Personally, I believe the estimates are too low on how many these lifestyle changes could affect. If cancer has skyrocketed so much in recent years, why WOULDN’T it help more than just a thrid of cancers? Americans certainly haven’t undergone a genetic change in the last 50 years, it’s lifestyle and what we’re exposing ourselves to, but remember, WE HAVE THE CONTROL.

Good Dietary and Lifestyle Health Habits can Drastically Cut Cancer Risk
by Reuben Chow, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Why do people get cancer? Perhaps more significantly, why have cancer rates soared so drastically over the past century? Is it because of genes? Is it because of what we are eating today? Or are stressful lifestyles to blame? Others put forth that factors such as environmental toxins and electromagnetic radiation are the main culprits. The fact is, cancer is a multi-causal disease and probably a result of a combination of the abovementioned factors. Recent statistics released by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) has estimated the role of diet and lifestyle, suggesting that about one-third of the 12 most common types of cancer in richer countries could be prevented merely through a healthy diet, physical activity and the maintenance of healthy weight. In poorer, developing nations, the proportion of cancers preventable through these steps was estimated to be about one-in-four.

Details and Findings of Study

The cancers in question included those of the bowel, breast, gallbladder, kidney, liver, lung, mouth / pharynx / larynx, esophagus, pancreas, prostate, stomach and womb. For these cancers, it was estimated that 34% of cases in the US and 39% of UK cases were preventable through the said steps. This implied that there was more room for improvement in these countries.

Zooming in, it was also estimated that more than 40% of breast and bowel cancer cases in developed nations could have been prevented in the same way.

And the abovementioned figures had not even taken into account the detrimental effects of smoking, which on its own is believed to be the main cause of about one-third of all cancers.

The report had been put together by a panel of 23 experts. Their study had been based on 10 recommendations released by the WCRF in 2007 on preventing cancer; those included daily exercise, avoiding processed meats, eating less salt, and keeping healthy weight. To arrive at the estimates, the team had looked at the biggest and most reliable research studies available which covered the 10 factors.

“This report shows that by making relatively straightforward changes, we could significantly reduce the number of cancer cases around the world,” said Michael Marmot, the chair of the panel.

Importance of Dietary and Lifestyle Factors in Cancer Prevention

The possible causes of cancer were discussed earlier. What is clear about cancer is that it is certainly not an alien-like ailment which descended from the sky and invaded our bodies, against which we can do nothing for protection or recovery. “People think that somehow cancer comes from heaven, or Darwin, or from their parent’s genes, but that’s not always the case. A third are caused by smoking, and approximately a third are related to diet and physical activity,” Marmot also said.

And scientific backing seems to be increasing. “The evidence linking diet, physical activity, obesity and cancer has become stronger over the last decade and this report can play a part in people adopting healthier lifestyles. After not smoking, it is clear that diet, physical activity and weight are the most important things people can do to reduce their cancer risk,” said Mike Richards, the National Clinical Director for Cancer.

Holistic Action is Needed

The experts have called for urgent action, especially in view of the escalating sedentary and obesity epidemics, graying populations as well as worsening food choices. “We are expecting a substantial increase in cancer rates with the ageing population, obesity rates soaring, and with people becoming less active and increasingly consuming highly processed and energy dense foods and drinks. The good news is that this is not inevitable,” said Martin Wiseman, the project director.

But it is also quite clear that a holistic solution involving many parties will be needed if society is to stem the cancer epidemic. “There is no magic bullet, no one single fix to the problem. If we are to tackle the situation we need individuals, business and government to work together to encourage healthy lifestyles by promoting things like cycle lanes and food labeling,” said Richard Davidson from Cancer Research UK.

The panel’s report had put forth some 48 suggestions for improvement. Some include:

* Eating more fruits in place of unhealthy fatty foods.
* Consumers to check labels to ensure foods being bought are healthy.
* Lowering costs of healthy foods.
* Schools and workplaces to stop providing unhealthy foods and to encourage exercise.
* Cycling to work.
* Governments to require widespread walking and cycling routes to be put in place; this will facilitate physical activity.
* Improving access to sporting facilities.

Beyond Merely Prevention – Cancer Recovery

How about those who have already been diagnosed with cancer? Are such lifestyle and dietary changes too little, too late for them? Not according to a recent study conducted by researchers at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridgeshire, which found that about 36% of men with aggressive prostate cancer could give planned surgery or radiotherapy a miss after making some basic dietary and lifestyle changes.

The changes, which included lowering salt intake, reducing alcohol consumption, eating larger amounts of oily fish, losing weight and undertaking moderate exercise, were able to inhibit or even totally stop their cancers’ progression.

As we search for complicated answers to the cancer riddle, we should not underestimate the powerful role of factors which have been with us throughout human history – dietary and lifestyle habits.

References

Clean living way to beat cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7…)

Healthy meal, exercise cuts cancer risk (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/…)

Adopting a healthy lifestyle ‘helps cancer suffers after diagnosis’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3…)

Leave a comment

New Model for Cancer – Vitamin D

Lisa Says: I was just talking about the benefits of Vitamin D (the FREE vitamin) this weekend. Here’s a clip from MSNBC.COM about how studies continue to show the risk of Vitamin D deficiencies due to lack of sunlight are related to cancer. Remember, this is only on a part of overall health, but [...]

Lisa Says: I was just talking about the benefits of Vitamin D (the FREE vitamin) this weekend. Here’s a clip from MSNBC.COM about how studies continue to show the risk of Vitamin D deficiencies due to lack of sunlight are related to cancer. Remember, this is only on a part of overall health, but who can argue that just 10 minutes a day with face and arms exposed (and no sunscreen) would hurt ? It could only help.

In this article, Dr. Mercola expounds on the benefits of Vitamin D regarding cancer. Here’s the link to the article which also includes the video clip (I couldn’t find the new clip itself on the web). Dr. Mercola then discusses the The D*Action Project.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/13/New-Model-for-Cancer–Dynamite.aspx

New Model for Cancer — Dynamite!
In a new study, researchers used a complex computer prediction model to determine that intake of vitamin D3 and calcium would prevent 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer annually in the U.S. and Canada. The researchers’ model also predicted that 75 percent of deaths from these cancers could be prevented with adequate intake of vitamin D3 and calcium.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

You can likely cut your risk of cancer by 60 percent — and it won’t cost you a dime. Would you like to know how?

By getting sun exposure.

This simple action is what allows your body to produce vitamin D, which is actually not a vitamin at all but rather a steroid hormone that influences your entire body. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain.

Theories linking vitamin D to certain cancers have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies, according to epidemiologist Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine.[1]

Dr. Garland is widely regarded as the top epidemiologist on vitamin D and its relation to health. He led one of the latest studies on vitamin D for cancer prevention and his results, which were published in the Annals of Epidemiology[2], were nothing short of astonishing. Garland wrote:

“It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D [vitamin D] level to 40-60 ng/ml would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three quarters of deaths from these diseases, in the US and Canada.”

Further, the study proposed a new model of cancer development — dubbed DINOMIT — that is centered on a loss of cancer cells’ ability to stick together. The model is a departure from the older model of cancer development, which centers on genetic mutations as the earliest driving forces behind cancer. According to Dr. Garland:

“The first event in cancer is loss of communication among cells due to, among other things, low vitamin D and calcium levels. In this new model, we propose that this loss may play a key role in cancer by disrupting the communication between cells that is essential to healthy cell turnover, allowing more aggressive cancer cells to take over.”

Vitamin D is a Powerful Cancer Prevention Strategy

Dr. Garland’s findings only lend further credence to the mountain of growing evidence that optimal levels of vitamin D are essential for your health. Here are just a few highlights into some of the most noteworthy findings:

Some 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year if vitamin D levels among populations worldwide were increased, according to previous research by Dr. Garland and colleagues.[3] And that’s just counting the death toll for two types of cancer.
Optimizing your vitamin D levels could help you to prevent at least 16 different types of cancer including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, prostate, and skin cancers.[4]
A large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled study on vitamin D and cancer showed that vitamin D can cut overall cancer risk by as much as 60 percent![5] This was such groundbreaking news that the Canadian Cancer Society has actually begun endorsing the vitamin as a cancer-prevention therapy.
Light-skinned women who had high amounts of long-term sun exposure had half the risk of developing advanced breast cancer (cancer that spreads beyond your breast) as women with lower amounts of regular sun exposure, according to a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology.[6]
A study by Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D.[7]
Now we’re starting to see more evidence that the type of cancer in question may not be all that important, because vitamin D appears to play a key role in the development — and prevention — of ALL types of cancer!

Beyond cancer, researchers have pointed out that increasing levels of vitamin D could prevent diseases that claim nearly 1 million lives throughout the world each year![8]

Why Isn’t This Being Shouted From the Rooftops??

The evidence is overwhelming, and the solution is incredibly simple. One way to drastically reduce your risk of cancer and countless other chronic diseases is to optimize your levels of vitamin D either by safe sun exposure, tanning in a safe tanning bed or taking a high-quality supplement.

Yet, a great deal of people around the world have heard nothing of this great “discovery.” It’s even likely that your doctor is among them.

And on top of that, many, many people are deficient in vitamin D. It’s thought that over 95 percent of U.S. senior citizens may be deficient, along with 85 percent of the American public.

Clearly, the word needs to get out but the mainstream media is slow to react. Plus, there’s no money to be made on selling vitamin D (it’s one of the most inexpensive supplements around) and sun exposure is free! So don’t count on any major corporations or drug companies to help get the message out (rather, count on them to try and suppress this lifesaving information).

The longer this information goes largely unnoticed, the more people who will die unnecessarily from potentially preventable cancers and other diseases.

Fortunately, GrassrootsHealth D*action is on a mission to get the word out and solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic … in just one year’s time.

The D*Action Project: How YOU Can Make a Difference

GrassrootsHealth has launched a worldwide public health campaign to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic in a year through a focus on testing and education with all individuals spreading the word.

And you are all invited to join in this campaign!

With Dr. Garland at the helm, The D*Action Project will be monitoring, for five years, the health outcomes of individuals who get their vitamin D levels to the levels of 40-60 ng/ml. I would highly recommend that you optimize your levels to the high end of this spectrum, as optimal vitamin D levels are 50-65 ng/ml, or 65-90 ng/ml if you are treating cancer.

Says Carole Baggerly, director of GrassrootsHealth:

“We will be tracking the incidence of many diseases, from cancer to diabetes and muscular function as well as pain levels to see what effect the higher vitamin D levels may have.

We expect to see a significant reduction in the incidence of breast cancer (and its recurrence), colon cancer, diabetes and myocardial infarction, compared with the general population. With the expansion of the project by individuals, we could substantially reduce this epidemic in a few years!”

So how can you get involved?

Join the D*action Project!

Simply complete a health questionnaire and test your vitamin D levels two times per year during the 5-year program to help demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient.

GrassrootsHealth is sponsoring the use of blood spot test kits (laboratory analysis done by ZRT Labs) for a $40 fee to each individual. The tests are to be done twice a year by each individual along with the submission of some basic health data. The fee includes:

A vitamin D blood spot test kit to be used at home (except in the state of New York)
The results sent directly to you
You will be asked to take a quick health survey and also to take action to adjust your vitamin D levels to get into the desired ranges, ideally in consultation with a knowledgeable health care professional.

If you are a physician, medical institution or other health group, please also get involved by contacting Baggerly directly at: carole@grassrootshealth.org

What will be done with the information you provide in the health survey?

A five-year study will be done with the data accumulated to evaluate the results of the program in disease prevention and to help create a long-term plan for public health.

Regularly testing your vitamin D levels and monitoring them to stay within therapeutic ranges is a step I urge all of you to do for your health. By joining the D*Action Project, you can make a major contribution to the health of the United States and your own health at the same time!

This project depends on a true ‘grassroots’ health movement. Together we can stop the vitamin D deficiency epidemic in its tracks and improve the health of millions of people.

With only 100 of you joining today, and getting two friends to join in two weeks (and those two friends getting two more), by week 42 there could be 400,000,000 people who are vitamin D ‘replete’ (more than the United States population)!

To find out more about vitamin D, including what your levels should be and how to safely get them there, please watch my one-hour, free vitamin D lecture.

Then, do your part to stop vitamin D deficiency, and improve your own health, by Joining the D*Action Project Now, and encouraging your friends and family to do so also!

——————————————————————————–

[1] Science Daily, “New Model Of Cancer Development: Low Vitamin D Levels May Have Role” May 26, 2009

[2] Annals of Epidemiology July 2009, Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages 468-483

[3] Nutrition Reviews August 2007 Volume 65, Supplement 1, pp. 91-95(5) (Registration Required)

The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology March 2007; 103(3-5):708-11

[4] Grant, William “Reduce Your Risk of Cancer With Sunlight Exposure,” Mercola.com March 31, 2004

[5] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition June 2007; 85(6):1586-91.

Leave a comment

Cancer Screening: Does It Really Save Lives?

Rex Says: This is a controversial article from Dr. Whitaker I’m posting, but that doesn’t make it any less true, or not. In my own journey from cancer to health, early detection of my cancer led me to lifestyle changes which have restored my health. Only surgery or radiation were given to me [...]

Rex Says: This is a controversial article from Dr. Whitaker I’m posting, but that doesn’t make it any less true, or not. In my own journey from cancer to health, early detection of my cancer led me to lifestyle changes which have restored my health. Only surgery or radiation were given to me as options. I had to find all other information on my own, and rarely, if ever, is the information we post on this blog given to us by mainstream clinicians who are usually over worked and/or don’t have the most recent clinical data from unbiased studies. We must take responsiliblity to make the wisest decisions for ourselves based on multiple views and ALL the data we can find, nationally and internationally. The goal needs to be the highest ’survival rates’ and not just the ‘5 year’ criteria but cancer free and no reoccurance. If there are higher mortality rates from the actual treatments, it’s our right to know that before we make they decision that we feel is best for our bodies.

Cancer Screening: Does It Really Save Lives?
by Dr. Julian Whitaker
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) Anne is a good patient. She sees her doctor for regular checkups, has yearly mammograms, Pap tests, and colon cancer screenings, and she even paid for a full-body CT scan out of her own pocket. She figures she’s doing everything she can to make sure she doesn’t get cancer.

Truth is, Anne is doing nothing to prevent cancer. Although cancer screening is billed as a preventive service that saves lives, the best it can do is detect disease in its early stages, when it is supposedly easier to treat. Nevertheless, every year millions of Americans dutifully line up for their screenings, completely unaware that they may be doing more harm than good.

For more than 15 years, I’ve been warning patients about the downside of mammograms, PSA testing, and the overall concept of cancer screening. It hasn’t been a popular position. Today, however, there’s a small but growing band of researchers, clinicians, and expert panels who are speaking out against the unbridled use of these tests. One of them, H. Gilbert Welch, MD, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School, has laid out very persuasive arguments in an aptly titled book, Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why. In this straightforward and well-referenced book, Dr. Welch raises several concerns about cancer screening.

1. Few People Benefit From Screening
For starters, the majority of folks who are screened receive no benefit. That’s because, despite scary statistics, most people will not get cancer. Let’s look at breast cancer as an example.

According to government statistics, the absolute risk of a 60-year-old woman dying from breast cancer in the next 10 years is 9 in 1,000. If regular mammograms reduce this risk by one-third-a widely cited but by no means universally accepted claim-her odds fall to 6 in 1,000. Therefore, for every 1,000 women screened, three of them avoid death from breast cancer, six die regardless, and the rest? They can’t possibly benefit because they weren’t going to die from the disease in the first place.

If mammograms worked as touted, death from breast cancer would be rare, since three-quarters of American women 40 and older get regular screenings (a total of 33.5 million per year). The modest decline in the death rate from the mid-1970s, when mammography was introduced, through the present can be attributed to factors other than screening, such as changes in treatment and the dramatic decrease in the use of Premarin and other cancer-promoting hormone replacement drugs. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that mammograms do not substantially reduce risk of death from breast cancer.

2. The Most Deadly Cancers Are Missed
The flip side is that some people who are screened get cancer and die anyway. Test results aren’t always accurate. Sometimes cancer is there, but it’s missed (false negatives). In the case of mammograms, it could be a question of a poor-quality test or a radiologist who overlooked something. Even experienced radiologists don’t always interpret test results the same, and sometimes they just plain get it wrong.

The most likely reason that cancer is overlooked, however, is due to the nature of cancer itself. The deadliest cancers grow very rapidly. Screening can detect slow-growing cancers in their early stages, but you can see how aggressive cancers could be missed if you’re only looking for them once a year. Depending on the cancer’s growth cycle, it could crop up just months after screening and be far advanced by the time the next test rolls around.

3. The Pitfalls of False Positives
Far more common than false negatives are false positives-those cancer scares that occur when you’re told that your test is suspicious but, after further evaluation, turns out to be nothing. False positives lead to confirmatory testing such as ultrasound of the breast and prostate, CT scan of the lung, colonoscopy, and colposcopy of the cervix. These tests are at best inconvenient and at worst extremely unpleasant, as anyone who’s had a colonoscopy knows. They also often lead to biopsies, which are far more invasive and could possibly promote the spread of cancer.

Unfortunately, false positive rates are incredibly high. For mammography, it’s close to 10 percent. For every 100 women screened, 10 will require further workup. If you repeat this screening test every year for 10 years, your cumulative risk of having at least one false positive rises to 65 percent. This means that more than half of all women will get the terrifying news that their mammogram is abnormal-the first step on the slippery slope of intervention.

False positive rates are high for PSA as well, especially among older men. Some estimate that three-quarters of men who have a prostate biopsy based on an elevated PSA level do not have cancer. And lifetime false-positive risk for Pap smears is 75 percent.
Another consideration is the psychological trauma of cancer screening. Being told you might have cancer is a harrowing experience, and the lag time between retesting and getting a clean bill of health can be months.

4. Unnecessary Treatment
Even worse than the sound and fury created by false positives is unnecessary treatment. Yes, some lives are saved due to early detection and treatment. But not all cancers are the same. Some are deadly, treated or not; others are not fatal regardless of treatment. Dr. Welch calls the latter pseudodisease-small, slow-growing or nonprogressive cancers that you’d never know existed were it not for screening tests. Yet all too often, these innocuous tumors are attacked with a vengeance, often to the detriment of patients.

A prime example is prostate cancer. Since 1975, its incidence has more than doubled. But rather than having an epidemic of prostate cancer, what we have is an epidemic of detection. Although many more men are being diagnosed and treated, the death rate from prostate cancer has held steady at 3 percent.

It’s human nature, when given a diagnosis of cancer, to want to get rid of it. But prostate cancer treatment is not benign. Surgical complications include difficulty urinating (17 percent), urinary incontinence (28 percent), and inability to have an erection (more than 50 percent). Radiation damages the rectum and can cause diarrhea and bowel urgency. Side effects of androgen suppression range from sexual dysfunction to risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Much of this treatment is completely unwarranted. Remember, the majority of prostate cancer is pseudodisease. Most men die with it, not of it.

What Tests Should You Get?
So which tests should you get and when should you get them? It depends on who you listen to. Unfortunately, there’s no clear consensus among expert panels and advocacy groups, so confusion reigns.

I hesitate to make blanket recommendations. However, before you have a test, I strongly encourage you to understand both the pros-the slim but potentially lifesaving possibility that early-stage, clinically significant cancer will be found and treated-and the cons-the high risk of false positives, additional testing, anxiety, and unnecessary treatment. That way, you’ll be better prepared to deal with the outcome, whatever it may be.

Think Twice
I understand that this is an emotionally charged issue. Cancer is scary and the treatments for it are as frightening as the disease itself. If you have symptoms of cancer, by all means see a doctor and discuss appropriate testing.

Otherwise, think twice. If your physician orders a cancer screening test, question its necessity. Doctors sometimes suggest these tests for all the wrong reasons: fears of malpractice, financial incentives, and even patient demand. Find out what course would be recommended if your results were positive. Then review the information in this article, read Dr. Welch’s book, and make your own educated decision.

Next time you hear that someone who died of cancer would have been saved if only he’d had regular testing, realize that’s nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. And, whatever you do, don’t let anyone make you feel irresponsible if you elect not to undergo cancer screening.

References
*SEER. Cancer of the breast. National Cancer Institute. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/ht… Accessed Sept. 2, 2008.
*US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/cps3dix….. Accessed Aug 25, 2008.
*Welch HG. Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2004.

Reprinted from Dr. Julian Whitaker’s Health & Healing with permission from Healthy Directions, LLC. For information on subscribing to this newsletter, visit www.drwhitaker.com or call (800) 539-8219.

About Julian Whitaker, MD: America’s Wellness Doctor, Julian Whitaker, MD, is a pioneer in alternative medicine and founder of the Whitaker Wellness Institute in Newport Beach, CA, the country’s largest alternative medicine clinic. Since 1979, Whitaker Wellness has helped more than 40,000 patients reverse serious health problems with lifestyle changes, nutritional supplements, and other safe, nontoxic therapies.

Leave a comment

Research Helps Breast Cancer Patients Arm Themselves before Visiting Oncologists

Lisa Says: Studies are now showing that higher survival rates for those diagnosed with ‘cancer’ are linked to NOT having mainstream treatments of radiation/chemo/surgery. The more educated a person is, the better able they are to make a truly informed decision (which still may be mainstream treatment). Rex and I have found that mainstream [...]

Lisa Says: Studies are now showing that higher survival rates for those diagnosed with ‘cancer’ are linked to NOT having mainstream treatments of radiation/chemo/surgery. The more educated a person is, the better able they are to make a truly informed decision (which still may be mainstream treatment). Rex and I have found that mainstream providers are so swamped with patients, as well as new data, it can be difficult for them to be aware of the most current clinical research. It is up to EACH of us to take responsilibility for our OWN health, and be our own advocate. Sometimes, even sharing that data with the doctor.

Research Helps Breast Cancer Patients Arm Themselves before Visiting Oncologists
by Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) After a diagnosis of breast cancer, most women want to know where they fit into the statistics being quoted to them as reasons for submitting to the traditional toxic treatments being advocated by their oncologists. Scientists in China are helping to further this understanding through research revealing a statistical breakdown of which forms of breast cancer are the most deadly, and which may not be so dangerous. Any woman being pressured to accept chemotherapy, radiation, and follow-drugs can use these statistics to empower herself and more accurately assess where she stands.

In the study, the clinical-pathological characteristics of triple negative breast cancer were investigated.. This type of cancer is diagnosed when cells in the breast lack all three receptors: estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2).

Although these receptors can help fuel breast cancer growth in some cases, they are also indicative of less threatening cancers. Cells that are able to express these factors more closely resemble normal cells, while cells that cannot express the factors have lost resemblance to normal cells. When cancerous cells more closely resemble normal cells, they are more easily returned to a state of normalcy. The lack of receptors makes triple negative breast cancer one of the most deadly forms of cancer.

The researchers investigated the clinical-pathological profiles of 690 female breast cancer patients. 127 of these women were negative for estrogen and progesterone receptors and also negative for HER-2. They were therefore triple negative.

The research showed that the expression rate of a protein called p53 in the triple negative breast cancer patients was 71.42%, significantly higher than that of the non-triple negative breast cancer patient’s rate of 42.56%. This p53 specific protein is produced by a gene that functions to suppress the growth of tumors, and is the most commonly mutated gene known in human cancer. Like other tumor-suppressor genes, p53 normally controls cell growth. If p53 is physically lost or is not functioning, cells may be permitted to divide without restraint. Women with high levels of p53 in their cells are at higher risk for cancer recurrence than women with low levels of p53. The buildup of p53 within a cancer cell is a sign that p53 is not working properly to suppress tumor growth.

The expression rate of epidermal growth factor receptor of the triple negative breast cancer patients was 59.74%, significantly higher than that of the non-triple negative breast cancer patients (22.06%).

The local lymph node metastasis rate of the triple negative breast cancer patients was 22.22%, significantly higher than that of the non-triple negative breast cancer patients (2.70%).

The 5 year and 10 year overall survival rates of the triple negative breast cancer patients were 79.76% and 63.15% respectively. These were both significantly lower than those of the non-triple negative breast cancer patients (88.59% and 83.28% respectively).

The 5 year and 10 year disease free rates of the triple negative breast cancer patients were 77.94% and 62.87% respectively, both significantly lower than those of the non-triple negative breast cancer patients (83.82% and 82.53% respectively). (Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi, February)

Some breast cancers are highly threatening and some are not

What is normally termed breast cancer is really many different forms of cancer, all of which originate in the breast. Yet traditional disease establishment treatments tend to be generally the same for all women. There is little interest in viewing breast cancer patients or their types of cancer individually. Traditional treatments use a factory approach in which almost everyone is given the standard regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and follow up drugs without regard to age, health status, diet, lifestyle, habits, psychology, or type of breast cancer.

These treatments are life altering events from which women never fully recover. Once a woman allows these treatments to begin, she has effectively given away her chance to ever achieve vibrant health again. During these treatments the organs and systems of her body will be compromised to the point of no return. Chemotherapy, the most toxic and deadly of all the treatments, is passed out to almost everyone because that’s where the money is. Most oncologists earn the bulk of their large incomes from the sale of chemotherapy drugs administered in their offices.

During the initial visit to the oncologist, a woman is deluged with a stream of statistics she has no hope of grasping at a time when she is tense, frightened and intimidated. Yet the decision to begin chemotherapy or radiation is demanded immediately, under the threat that every minute counts. However, research has shown that it is not the immediacy of treatment or the size of the tumor that dictates outcome nearly as much as the type of cancer a woman has.

When a woman with breast cancer asks her surgeon or oncologist how long she has had the tumor in her body, she will most likely be told that no tumors were seen on her last mammogram but now the mammogram shows a tumor. The implication of such information is that the tumor is growing so fast that treatment must be begun immediately. But the reality is that breast cancers can take up to 20 years to grow to a size where they are detectable. Just because a woman had no evidence of a tumor on her last mammogram and now she has evidence of one does not mean the tumor is growing rapidly. It only means that the tumor has at last reached a size where it can be detected, a process that may have taken 20 years. Many breast cancers grow extremely slowly. There is no reason why a decision to submit to surgery, to be injected with poison, or to be radiated must be made without time to think it over and become better informed.

Take time to understand your disease before you make any decisions

Simply hearing that you have a diagnosis of breast cancer is not enough information on which to make any kind of life altering decision. If you have submitted to a biopsy your oncologist will have a copy of the lab report. It is your right to have a copy of that report, so ask for it. Take it home and study it. All terminology needed to understand the jargon can easily be found online. Remember that no one has the vested interest in your health and life that you do.

Women diagnosed with breast cancers that have not become invasive, known as ductal carcinoma in situ need to be aware that these cancers are not spreading to other parts of their body because the body’s own mechanisms are keeping them in check. These cancers may completely disappear in time without any interventions whatsoever. Even cancers that are invasive may disappear without intervention. The rates of breast cancer in women were much lower until the invention of mammography which can detect them earlier. Did women magically increase their cancer rate at exactly the same time mammography was invented? This is highly unlikely. So what happened to all the breast cancers women were having all along? The only logical conclusion is that they were handled by the body’s own defense systems.

Less threatening forms of cancer may more likely be dealt with effectively by the body’s own defense systems. This means that the more a woman knows about the nature of her breast cancer, the better she is able to make an informed choice about the treatment or lack of treatment she is willing to undergo.

Understand your Nottingham Score

When studying your lab report you will probably find a Nottingham Score listed that reflects your test results on three different scales assessing how your invasive breast cancer cells look under a microscope. Each of the three components is assigned a sub-score of 1, 2, or 3. The sub-scores are added to arrive at the Nottingham Score. The lowest Nottingham Score is 3 (1 plus 1 plus 1), and the highest is 9 (3 plus 3 plus 3). The lower the score, the less deadly is the cancer. Consistent with the research findings discussed above, tumors with estrogen and progesterone receptors as well as those expressing HER-2 receptors tend to have lower scores, meaning they are less threatening. Most breast tumors fall into this category. Triple negative breast cancers tend to yield higher scores, meaning they are more threatening.

Probably the most important of the three Nottingham components is the one that reveals the number of cells in mitosis. As you probably remember from high school, mitosis refers to cell division. By knowing what percentage of cells in your biopsy was in mitosis, you will have a measure of the rate of growth of your cancer. In some cancers, especially those in women who have been using bioidentical progesterone cream, there are virtually no cells in mitosis. The cancer is just sitting there minding its own business and posing very little threat. Samples that reflect higher rates of mitosis mean the cancers are growing more quickly.

Understand the nature of statistics

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics knows that they can be made to say whatever the person using them wants them to say. Statistics are derived from samples, and because each person is very different from another in diet, age, general health, fitness level and so on, cancer statistics are merely estimates. Samples can be manipulated in many different ways to fit specific purposes.

For example, let’s say a woman is told that because cancer cells were found in her lymph nodes, chemotherapy will improve her odds of living for another 5 years by 15%. What she is not told is what comprised the sample pool. Did this pool consist of all women who had any kind of positive cells found in their lymph nodes? If so, the sample pool consisted of women ranging from those who had a few cells squeezed out of their tumors by the excessive pressure of mammography during the diagnostic process, to women who had well established metastases throughout their lymph systems. Among other things a woman is not told is whether the pool contained all women with breast cancer or only those with receptor positive cancers. She is not being told the cell division rate of women in the pool. There is no information given in this statistic that is useful to an individual trying to make a determination about her life.

The statistical babble going on by oncologists is really not informative at all. It is actually just a sales pitch and an attempt to frighten and confuse at a time when you are most vulnerable. The cancer industry counts on the fact that people do not understand the nature of statistics and are confused and frightened by them. Oncologists know this and have been taught to use statistics to intimidate. If your oncologist seriously wanted to inform you of what was really going on, he would tell you that no matter how low or high your Nottingham Score, and no matter how many of your cells were in mitosis, he is going to do his best to convince you to submit to chemotherapy, radiation, and years of follow-drugs because that is how he makes his living.

Whether your cancer is the non-invasive in situ type, strongly or weakly expressing estrogen, progesterone or HER-2 receptors, or not expressing any receptors at all, he is going to try to convince you to submit to his treatments because that is the standard of care in America.

Many women who have had chemotherapy and radiation do not die of cancer. They die of the effects of these treatments. However, women who die from cancer treatments are not used in the statistical pools related to cancer deaths. For example, a woman who dies from liver or kidney damage following chemotherapy is counted as a liver or kidney related death, not a cancer death.

Take time to understand that cancer can be completely cured by building up the body, but not by tearing it down

Have the courage to tell your oncologist that you will not be rushed into making decisions about your health and your life. Tell your oncologist you will give him a call later if you decide to accept his treatments. Walk away from his office with your lab report in your hand and begin to learn about and understand your particular cancer and breast cancer in general. Once you have achieved knowledge and understanding, your fear will fall away.

Never before has there been such a wealth of information at your fingertips as there is now. Take the time and use this gift to learn about the treatments your oncologist is recommending. Realize that there are many other treatments available that will allow you to fully recover from your cancer with your organs and systems intact.

Take time to learn about the healing power of your own body. Realize that there is no other more potent healer on earth. Take time to understand that if you give your body and mind the support they need to achieve complete healing, vibrant health can again be yours.

For more information:

http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html

http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings…

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art…

About the author
Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using “alternative” treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

Leave a comment