Tag Archives: cancer

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

Cancer Will Kill 13.2 Million a Year by 2030

Rex Says: Here is an article on rising cancer rates from multiple sources, i.e. the BBC. Dr. Mercola then discusses studies showing the impact nutrition and lifestyle can have in preventing cancer, very similar to the changes I made to address my cancer naturally (and successfully).  I encourage you to read the entire article  – [...]

Rex Says: Here is an article on rising cancer rates from multiple sources, i.e. the BBC. Dr. Mercola then discusses studies showing the impact nutrition and lifestyle can have in preventing cancer, very similar to the changes I made to address my cancer naturally (and successfully).  I encourage you to read the entire article  – it will be empowering.

Cancer Will Kill 13.2 Million a Year by 2030

Posted By Dr. Mercola | June 19 2010 |

Cancer will kill more than 13.2 million people a year by 2030, almost double the number who died from the disease in 2008.  Only 7.6 million people died of cancer in 2008.

Around 56 percent of new cancer cases worldwide in 2008 were in developing countries and these regions also accounted for 63 percent of all cancer deaths.

According to Reuters:

“The projection for annual death rates of 13.2 million and annual diagnosis of 21.4 million were based on assumptions that underlying rates of cancer would remain the same over the next two decades”.

Read more for prevention suggestions

Leave a comment

What if You Ate Only What Was Advertised on TV?

Lisa Says: It will hopefully come as no surprise that if we only ate foods that were advertised on TV, TIME magazine reports that researchers have found “that it exceeded the government’s recommended daily amount of fat by 20 times and had 25 times the recommended daily intake of sugar.”   The issue is that [...]

Lisa Says: It will hopefully come as no surprise that if we only ate foods that were advertised on TV, TIME magazine reports that researchers have found “that it exceeded the government’s recommended daily amount of fat by 20 times and had 25 times the recommended daily intake of sugar.”   The issue is that “TV ads for food may be skewing our decisions on what we eat in powerful ways.”
QUESTION: So how influenced are you by advertising and the media?  Perhaps more than you realize?  Enjoy the article.

What if You Ate Only What Was Advertised on TV?

By Alice Park Wednesday, Jun. 02, 2010, TIME magazine

It should come as no surprise that the typical American diet isn’t exactly brimming with healthy goodness — rather, it’s laden with fat, sugar and salt. And now new research published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association points to a troubling reason: TV ads for food may be skewing our decisions on what we eat in powerful ways.

To figure out exactly how unhealthy a TV-guided diet would be, researchers studied food commercials that appeared during 84 hours of prime-time programming and 12 hours of Saturday-morning cartoons broadcast over the major U.S. networks during one month in 2004. When the research team calculated the nutritional content of a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet containing only foods that were advertised on television, they found that it exceeded the government’s recommended daily amount of fat by 20 times and had 25 times the recommended daily intake of sugar. “That’s almost a month’s worth of sugar in one day,” notes study leader Michael Mink at Armstrong Atlantic State University in Savannah, Ga.
Read more

Leave a comment

New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer

Continue reading »

Leave a comment

No Shortcuts to Health

Lisa Says: The Virginian Pilot printed my letter to the Editor today (copied below) in response to the front page article that ran 2/25 on “America’s ‘queen of coupons’”.
Virginian Pilot 12 March 2010 | 5:00 AM
No shortcuts to health
Re ‘Grocery coupon queen,’ front page, Feb. 25: The report shows the disconnect in understanding what gets us [...]

Lisa Says: The Virginian Pilot printed my letter to the Editor today (copied below) in response to the front page article that ran 2/25 on “America’s ‘queen of coupons’”.

Virginian Pilot 12 March 2010 | 5:00 AM
No shortcuts to health

Re ‘Grocery coupon queen,’ front page, Feb. 25: The report shows the disconnect in understanding what gets us ’sick’ and how to save real money.

Americans need to choose between saving pennies at the grocery store and promoting chronic disease or saving thousands in medical care and enjoying robust health.

The article lists items clinically shown to promote such issues as diabetes, obesity and cancer, and shortsightedly promotes using these products and lowering your food budget, while medical costs are bankrupting you.

But you can eat healthy foods you enjoy and save money at both the grocery store and the doctor’s office. With a little research, you can learn to stretch your food dollar with healthier choices.
Lisa G Hamaker, Co-Director, Hunger For Health
Virginia Beach

Here’s the original article that ran. ‘Nuff said.

America’s ‘Coupon Queen’ shares her supermarket savvy
By Carolyn Shapiro
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 25, 2010

Susan Samtur stands in the cereal aisle and calculates.

A box of MultiGrain Cheerios normally costs $3.69. Harris Teeter supermarket has them on sale: two boxes for $5, or $2.50 each. Samtur has a coupon for 75 cents off, which the store will double, for a savings of $1.50. Her final price is $1.

The self-described “Coupon Queen,” who has written books on her grocery-shopping strategies, stopped Wednesday in Hampton Roads to demonstrate her skills at the Harris Teeter in north Suffolk. Up and down the aisles, she consults her coupon filing system, which her mother helped her make decades ago, as well as her shopping list and the store’s latest advertising flyer.

“This is another good one,” she says, heading toward the crackers. “They have the Ritz on sale for $2.99.”

Her coupon will take an additional $2 off the crackers with a purchase of any Coca-Cola product, so her cost for the Ritz comes to 99 cents. “I’ll always use Ritz crackers,” she explains. “I use them for crust when I’m baking.”

Her Harris Teeter visit is on Samtur’s East Coast supermarket tour. While preaching her gospel of grocery savings, she hopes to promote her fourth book, due this fall. On her Web site, she sells subscriptions to her quarterly magazine, Refundle Bundle, and a DVD called “Supershopping with the Coupon Queen,” which comes with an envelope of coupons worth $25 for the shipping price of $6.95, to cover costs, she says.

Samtur, 65, is a petite purchasing powerhouse, standing well under 5 feet. She has big eyes and a bigger Bronx accent, from her childhood in the New York City borough. A resident of Scarsdale, N.Y., her supermarket of choice at home is A&P.

Coupon competency requires preparation. Before shopping, Samtur says, she spends a half hour preparing a list, studying the store’s weekly flyer and comparing it against her pile of coupons to find the steepest discounts. For Harris Teeter, she also checked the chain’s Web site and other sources of online coupons. Some supermarkets don’t accept those, but Harris Teeter does.

Good coupon shoppers, Samtur says, must dispense with brand loyalty. They must forgo favorites for the best deal. In certain categories, such as laundry detergent, she has coupons for as many as 10 brands “because I don’t know what’s going to be on sale.”

In the dairy case, she gets six of Dannon’s Light & Fit yogurt cups Wednesday for 15 cents each. Harris Teeter had marked them down to 10 for $4, or 40 cents each. Samtur had a coupon for 75 cents off six, and Harris Teeter doubles coupons up to 99 cents. So that’s $2.40 in yogurt cups, less $1.50 with her coupon, for six for 90 cents.

Samtur grows excited about a can of Edge shaving gel on sale for $1.99. She has a 75-cent coupon, doubled for a savings of $1.50. “For 49 cents, where are you going to get a brand-name shaving cream?” she says.

She talks a mile a minute, scanning the shelves for sale prices and deals. Her keen eye catches freebies and value-added pitches that most shoppers would ignore.

She notices packages that say “20 percent more!” of a product for the same price as the usual size. She spots “free DVD” on a box of cereal – for five box “tokens,” the shopper can choose from a number of movies. She points out instant coupons attached to product packages, an offer of “free bananas” on a box of Nilla Wafers cookies, and a Tropicana orange juice carton that pitches “up to $15 savings.”

Samtur takes advantage of most of these deals. “Sometimes there are offers where you send away a part of your package and you get coupons back.”

Many of those coupons are for free items – no strings attached or other purchase required. Samtur’s file includes several of these. At Harris Teeter, she gets a $5.19 box of Cascade dish detergent and a $7.49 container of Folgers coffee – each for the price of a 44-cent stamp.

When Samtur reaches the cash register at Harris Teeter, she has a cartful of items culled from her list and a pile of coupons to match. While on tour, Samtur doesn’t actually buy the groceries. The store, which approves her visit ahead of time, returns items to the shelves and gives back her coupons.

The cashier rings her up at $156.93, including the savings from her VIC (Very Important Customer) frequent-shopper card, which gives her the in-store discounts. Then the store manager scans her coupons.

Her final total: $35.82. She saved 77 percent.

“The longer you do it, the better you get at it,” Samtur says, promising that any consumer can excel at coupon use. “It’s not like I have some special or unique gift.”

2 Comments

(Food) Rules Worth Following, for Everyone’s Sake

Lisa Says: here’s a New York Times article published last week highlighting Michael Pollan’s new book “Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual,” as a response to the rapidly declining health in this country. Many of these suggestions are similar to how we addressed Rex’s cancer naturally and have had such success reclaiming our health. [...]

Lisa Says: here’s a New York Times article published last week highlighting Michael Pollan’s new book “Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual,” as a response to the rapidly declining health in this country. Many of these suggestions are similar to how we addressed Rex’s cancer naturally and have had such success reclaiming our health. Enjoy the article, and thanks for the info Bert !

Rules Worth Following, for Everyone’s Sake Published: February 1, 2010 By JANE E. BRODY
New York Times

In the more than four decades that I have been reading and writing about the findings of nutritional science, I have come across nothing more intelligent, sensible and simple to follow than the 64 principles outlined in a slender, easy-to-digest new book called “Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual,” by Michael Pollan.
Mr. Pollan is not a biochemist or a nutritionist but rather a professor of science journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. You may recognize his name as the author of two highly praised books on food and nutrition, “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto” and “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.” (All three books are from Penguin.)

If you don’t have the time and inclination to read the first two, you can do yourself and your family no better service than to invest $11 and one hour to whip through the 139 pages of “Food Rules” and adapt its guidance to your shopping and eating habits.

Chances are you’ve heard any number of the rules before. I, for one, have been writing and speaking about them for decades. And chances are you’ve yet to put most of them into practice. But I suspect that this little book, which is based on research but not annotated, can do more than the most authoritative text to get you motivated to make some important, lasting, health-promoting and planet-saving changes in what and how you eat.

Reasons to Change

Two fundamental facts provide the impetus Americans and other Westerners need to make dietary changes. One, as Mr. Pollan points out, is that populations who rely on the so-called Western diet — lots of processed foods, meat, added fat, sugar and refined grains — “invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.” Indeed, 4 of the top 10 killers of Americans are linked to this diet.

As people in Asian and Mediterranean countries have become more Westernized (affluent, citified and exposed to the fast foods exported from the United States), they have become increasingly prone to the same afflictions.
The second fact is that people who consume traditional diets, free of the ersatz foods that line our supermarket shelves, experience these diseases at much lower rates. And those who, for reasons of ill health or dietary philosophy, have abandoned Western eating habits often experience a rapid and significant improvement in their health indicators.

I will add a third reason: our economy cannot afford to continue to patch up the millions of people who each year develop a diet-related ailment, and our planetary resources simply cannot sustain our eating style and continue to support its ever-growing population.

In his last book, Mr. Pollan summarized his approach in just seven words: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The new book provides the practical steps, starting with advice to avoid “processed concoctions,” no matter what the label may claim (“no trans fats,” “low cholesterol,” “less sugar,” “reduced sodium,” “high in antioxidants” and so forth).

As Mr. Pollan puts it, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.”

Do you already avoid products made with high-fructose corn syrup? Good, but keep in mind, sugar is sugar, and if it is being added to a food that is not normally sweetened, avoid it as well. Note, too, that refined flour is hardly different from sugar once it gets into the body.
Also avoid foods advertised on television, imitation foods and food products that make health claims. No natural food is simply a collection of nutrients, and a processed food stripped of its natural goodness to which nutrients are then added is no bargain for your body.

Those who sell the most healthful foods — vegetables, fruits and whole grains — rarely have a budget to support national advertising. If you shop in a supermarket (and Mr. Pollan suggests that wherever possible, you buy fresh food at farmers’ markets), shop the periphery of the store and avoid the center aisles laden with processed foods. Note, however, that now even the dairy case has been invaded by products like gunked-up yogurts.

Follow this advice, and you will have to follow another of Mr. Pollan’s rules: “Cook.”

“Cooking for yourself,” he writes, “is the only sure way to take back control of your diet from the food scientists and food processors.” Home cooking need not be arduous or very time-consuming, and you can make up time spent at the stove with time saved not visiting doctors or shopping for new clothes to accommodate an expanding girth.

Although the most wholesome eating pattern consists of three leisurely meals a day, and preferably a light meal at night, if you must have snacks, stick to fresh and dried fruits, vegetables and nuts, which are naturally loaded with healthful nutrients. I keep a dish of raisins and walnuts handy to satisfy the urge to nibble between meals. I also take them along for long car trips. Feel free to use the gas-station restroom, but never “get your fuel from the same place your car does,” Mr. Pollan writes.

Treating Treats as Treats

Perhaps the most important rules to put into effect as soon as possible are those aimed at the ever-expanding American waistline. If you eat less, you can afford to pay more for better foods, like plants grown in organically enriched soil and animals that are range-fed.

He recommends that you do all your eating at a table, not at a desk, while working, watching television or driving. If you’re not paying attention to what you’re eating, you’re likely to eat more than you realize.

But my favorite tip, one that helped me keep my weight down for decades, is a mealtime adage, “Stop eating before you’re full” — advice that has long been practiced by societies as diverse as Japan and France. (There is no French paradox, by the way: the French who stay slim eat smaller portions, leisurely meals and no snacks.)

Practice portion control and eat slowly to the point of satiation, not fullness. The food scientists Barbara J. Rolls of Penn State and Brian Wansink of Cornell, among others, have demonstrated that people eat less when served smaller portions on smaller plates. “There is nothing wrong with special occasion foods, as long as every day is not a special occasion,” Mr. Pollan writes. “Special occasion foods offer some of the great pleasures of life, so we shouldn’t deprive ourselves of them, but the sense of occasion needs to be restored.”

Here is where I can make an improvement. Ice cream has been a lifelong passion, and even though I stick to a brand lower in fat and calories than most, and limit my portion to the half-cup serving size described on the container, I indulge in this treat almost nightly. Perhaps I’ll try the so-called S policy Mr. Pollan says some people follow: “No snacks, no seconds, no sweets — except on days that begin with the letter S.”
More Articles in Health » A version of this article appeared in print on February 2, 2010, on page D7 of the New York edition.

Leave a comment

15,000 will die from CT scans done in 1 year

Lisa Says: Here is an article regarding clinical research on CT scans that Dr. Mercola references that shocked even the generally unshockable me. Rueters is reporting “15,000 will die from CT scans done in 1 year because scans have higher levels of radiation than thought, researchers say”. The suggestion is to use [...]

Lisa Says: Here is an article regarding clinical research on CT scans that Dr. Mercola references that shocked even the generally unshockable me. Rueters is reporting “15,000 will die from CT scans done in 1 year because scans have higher levels of radiation than thought, researchers say”. The suggestion is to use MRI’s, and CT scans only when absolutely necessary. Enjoy Dr. Mercola’s info below.

Will You Be one of the 15,000 That Are Killed By CT Scans Next Year?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 29 2009
CT scans deliver far more radiation than has been believed, and may contribute to 29,000 new cancers each year, along with 14,500 deaths.

One study found that people may be exposed to up to four times as much radiation as estimated by earlier studies. While previous studies relied on dummies equipped with sensors, authors of the new paper studied more than 1,000 patients at four hospitals.

Based on their measurements, a patient could get as much radiation from one CT scan as 74 mammograms or 442 chest X-rays.

Young people are at highest risk from excess radiation, partly because they have many years ahead of them in which cancers could develop. Among 20-year-old women who get one coronary angiogram, a CT scan of the heart, one in 150 will develop cancer related to the procedure.

Sources:

USA Today December 14, 2009

MSNBC December 14, 2009

Dr. Mercola’s comments:
I’ve been warning about the extreme dangers of CT scans for nearly a decade now.

It’s incredible to me that even with long-standing, irrefutable proof of the connection between CT scans and a high incidence of cancer, so many of these tests are still being ordered on unsuspecting patients. Estimates are that only seven percent of patients are informed of the risks of their CT scans.

This is another example of why you must be your own advocate when you visit your doctor or other health care provider.

Arm yourself with information about the risks that accompany medical tests, treatments and prescription drugs. Become a smart consumer of your health care options, rather than an unfortunate victim of dangerous and unnecessary procedures and medications.

Why So Many Scans?

The number of CT scans doubled between 1997 and 2006, according to a study by the University of California, San Francisco.

Even more startling: According to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), in 1980, three million CT scans were performed in the U.S. By 2006, the number had exceeded 62 million, including four million on children.

One reason for the increase is many doctors have purchased their own imaging equipment for their practices. This adds a financial incentive into the mix and sets the stage for overuse of the technology.

Another reason for the increase is a trend toward commercially advertised full-body CT scans to “find everything wrong with you.” Consumers with extra cash laying around (in excess of $1,000 in most cases) are being encouraged to undergo a full-body scan as a preventive measure.

Three Million Excess Cancers!!

The truth is these scans are performed by commercial enterprises, and the quality of the tests is so poor as to render the results virtually useless.

This would be less troubling if the CT scan was a harmless imaging technique. But with radiation levels 100 times what you receive from a conventional chest x-ray, this is not a test to undergo for screening purposes or “just because.”

There are circumstances in which a CT scan is truly your best option due to your condition, but whenever possible, another less dangerous scanning technology, like an MRI which does not use ionizing radiation, should be used. MRI’s do not involve the use of x-rays, but the powerful magnetic field of the scanner may present another set of health risks.

The NEJM study estimated that overuse of CT scans may cause up to three million excess cancers in the next two or three decades. David Brenner of Columbia University, lead author of the study, estimates that a third of all CT scans are medically unnecessary.

Brenner told USA Today, “Virtually anyone who presents in the emergency room with pain in the belly or a chronic headache will automatically get a CT scan. Is that justified?”

Riskier Still for Kids and Brain Scan Patients

If your child undergoes a CT scan, chances are the equipment will be calibrated for an adult. This means your child could absorb two to six times more radiation than needed to produce a clear image. This is unconscionable, and could result in radiation-induced cancer later in life.

Over 200 unsuspecting patients who underwent a specific type of CT brain scan at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles received eight to 10 times the normal dose of radiation due to an incorrectly programmed machine.

The overdose wasn’t discovered for 18 months and only came to light after a patient reported losing patches of hair following a CT scan.

On the whole, diagnostic imaging tests have increased Americans’ average radiation exposure seven times since 1980. Increased exposure leads to increased cancer risk.

The Simple Truth: Radiation Damages Your Body

X-rays and other classes of ionizing radiation, like CT scans, are a proven cause of virtually all types of mutations — especially structural chromosomal mutations. Radiation also causes genomic instability, often a characteristic of the most aggressive cancers.

Further, cells cannot correctly repair every type of complex genetic damage induced by ionizing radiation, and sometimes cells cannot repair such damage at all.

Unlike some other mutagens, ionizing radiation has access to the genetic molecules of every internal organ, if the organ is within the x-ray beam. Within such organs, even a single high-speed high-energy electron, set into motion by an x-ray photon, has a chance of inducing the types of damage that defy repair. That is why there is no risk-free dose-level when it comes to ionizing radiation.

And when such mutations are not cell-lethal, they endure and accumulate with each additional exposure to x-rays or other ionizing radiation.

Evidence strongly indicates that over half the deaths from cancer and heart disease may be x-ray-induced.

Mammography is another example of overused, risky imaging technology.

A mammogram exposes your body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. Mammography compresses your breasts tightly, which is not only painful for most women but can actually spread dangerous cancer cells, should they exist.

Updated guidelines now call for women under 50 to forego routine screening mammography. This is a small step in the right direction, however, there is a far better option.

A 100% Safe Imaging Technology

I highly recommend thermography for breast screening in particular, as well as other types of imaging.

Thermographic screening is entirely safe, non-invasive, and brilliantly simple. This technology measures the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translates the information into anatomical images.

There is no pressure or compression of your breasts, and no radiation. This imaging system can detect signs of breast cancer up to 10 years before either a mammogram or a physical exam.

If your doctor or other health care provider recommends a CT scan, mammogram or other imaging technique as either a screening tool or to diagnose a physical complaint, I strongly encourage you to explore all your options before agreeing to be radiated.

Don’t trade your good health or a minor complaint for an increased risk of x-ray-induced cancer in the future.

Related Links:

Avoid CT Scans If At All Possible

Reconsider Having Screening Full-Body CT Scans

Thermography for Breast Cancer

Leave a comment

Getting out the gluten

Lisa Says: I am posting a great article here from Harvard Medical School on the issues with gluten, even if you don’t have ’symptoms’. Going gluten free is one of the lifestyle changes Rex and I have focused on as studies have shown the gluten and cancer connection. There are SO many alternatives [...]

Lisa Says: I am posting a great article here from Harvard Medical School on the issues with gluten, even if you don’t have ’symptoms’. Going gluten free is one of the lifestyle changes Rex and I have focused on as studies have shown the gluten and cancer connection. There are SO many alternatives out there now, it makes new food choices so much easier. Grains and flours we focus on are millet, amaranth, quinoa, and buckwheat. Rex says ‘when you think of GLUten, think GLUE.’

Getting out the gluten
12/08/2009 from Harvard Medical School

Celiac disease (an autoimmune disorder whose symptoms are triggered by gluten, the protein content in wheat, barley, rye, and spelt) is on the rise. That’s one reason for the rise in popularity of gluten-free food.

Celiac specialists say the disease isn’t diagnosed as often as it should be. As a result, many people suffer with it for years, often after getting other — and incorrect — diagnoses and useless treatments.

But a growing number of the people dodging gluten fall into a gray area: they don’t have celiac disease but seem to be unable to digest gluten properly. There are no tests or strict criteria for this problem, aside from simple trial and error with a gluten-free diet. Some people may be getting caught up in a food fad. But many others probably do have trouble digesting gluten or perhaps the sugars in some of these grains (like the lactose intolerance that makes it hard to digest dairy foods).

Do you have a gluten problem?

The classic and most immediately noticeable symptoms of celiac disease are, not surprisingly, gastrointestinal: bloating, flatulence, and diarrhea, sometimes with smelly stools. People who can’t digest gluten or grain sugars may have similar symptoms.

Celiac disease can severely impair the absorption of nutrients. In children, this may lead to stunted growth; in adults, the consequences include anemia (because iron isn’t being absorbed) and weaker bones (because calcium and vitamin D aren’t getting into the body). Anemia causes fatigue and malaise, but some people with celiac disease feel that way without anemia.

Doctors sometimes miss the celiac disease diagnosis because they’re looking for the classic gastrointestinal symptoms, not the vaguer ones that stem for the most part from malabsorption of nutrients.

One major difference between celiac disease and grain-related digestion problems is that when it’s just a digestion problem it typically doesn’t lead to malabsorption and nutritional deficiencies.

Women with untreated celiac disease have higher-than-normal rates of menstrual abnormalities and infertility. A large study published in 2007 found an increased risk of pancreatitis in people with celiac disease. It’s not clear whether these associations suggest a cause-and-effect relationship or if celiac disease and these conditions happen to share an underlying cause.

Grains for the gluten-challenged

We’re often too quick to depend on pills instead of first working to change our diet and exercise habits. But with celiac disease, there’s no pill, and a fairly radical change in diet is the only treatment. Drug companies have started to take some interest in the disease, and treatments that would block the absorption of gluten are being investigated, but none so far are close to gaining FDA approval.

Until you need to avoid gluten, you probably don’t realize how ubiquitous it is. Gluten is used as a thickening agent and filler in everything from ketchup to ice cream. The inactive ingredients in many medications are gluten-based. And even when gluten isn’t an ingredient, it may inadvertently get into a food because a wheat-based food was processed in the same factory, or wheat was grown in a nearby field. At home, wooden utensils and toaster ovens are gluten “hot spots.” Oats don’t contain gluten, but many people with celiac disease avoid them because of contamination problems.

The gluten-free diet has traditionally depended on starch from rice, corn, and potatoes. Food makers have also learned how to use xanthan and guar gums to replace gluten’s elasticity: a common complaint about gluten-free baked goods is that they are powdery. But these formulations can also leave diets short of fiber and B vitamins. Melinda Dennis, the nutrition coordinator at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center’s Celiac Center, encourages patients to eat foods made with unconventional but nutritionally well-rounded substitutes, including amaranth, buckwheat (no relation to wheat), millet, quinoa, sorghum, and teff. She calls them the “super six” because of their high vitamin and fiber content.

Eating out is one of the biggest issues for people with gluten problems. Vegetables get contaminated because they are steamed over pots of pasta water. Fish and chicken are floured to hold seasonings. But many restaurants are beginning to offer gluten-free items. And there are some celiac-friendly cuisines, even if they are not overtly gluten-free. Ethiopian (which uses teff), Indian, Mexican, and Thai are good possibilities.

Leave a comment

Cancer can reverse itself, data says

Rex Says: new data to consider on cancer as this study shows not all cancers progress. Tests such as the PCA3 for prostate cancer can be used as a tool in determining which cancers will spread and which most likely will not.  Here is the article from the New York Times referencing info from the Journal [...]

Rex Says: new data to consider on cancer as this study shows not all cancers progress. Tests such as the PCA3 for prostate cancer can be used as a tool in determining which cancers will spread and which most likely will not.  Here is the article from the New York Times referencing info from the Journal of the American Medical Association.  Studies such as Dr. Ornish’s have also shown that lifestyle changes can reduce cancer. Of course, lifestyle is currently projected to cause up to 70% of cancers (depending on the study you read).

Cancer can reverse itself, data says

By Gina Kolata, The New York Times

Call it the arrow of cancer. Like the arrow of time, it was supposed to point in one direction. Cancers grew and worsened.

However, as a paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted in October, data from more than two decades of screening for breast and prostate cancer call that view into question. Besides finding tumors that would be lethal if left untreated, screening appears to be finding many small tumors that would not be a problem if they were left alone, undiscovered . They were destined to stop growing on their own, shrink or even disappear, at least in the case of some breast cancers.
“The old view is that cancer is a linear process,” said Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health. “A cell acquired a mutation, and little by little, it acquired more and more mutations. Mutations are not supposed to revert spontaneously.”

Click here for the rest of the article

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/virginian-pilot-ledger-star-norfolk/mi_8014/is_20091101/cancer-reverse-data/ai_n41473460/

Article Copyright 2009
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

Leave a comment

CDC Report Stirs Controversy For Merck's Gardasil Vaccine

Lisa Says: I really am all about getting ALL the facts, weighing the pros and cons, then making an educated decision. We have posted previously on the concerns of the vaccine Gardasil outweighing any possible benefit and now, so soon after it’s release, serious concerns are arising, enough for the CDC (such a proponent [...]

Lisa Says: I really am all about getting ALL the facts, weighing the pros and cons, then making an educated decision. We have posted previously on the concerns of the vaccine Gardasil outweighing any possible benefit and now, so soon after it’s release, serious concerns are arising, enough for the CDC (such a proponent of vaccines) to get involved. Even a doctor quoted in this article says other doctors themselves haven’t been informed of all the facts. Here is a mainstream ABC news story. Be informed, be empowered, be healthy.

CDC Report Stirs Controversy For Merck’s Gardasil Vaccine
Cervical Cancer Vaccine Linked to Deaths, Incidents of Fainting and Blood Clots
By RADHA CHITALE
ABC News Medical Unit August 18, 2009
A government report out today raises new questions about the safety of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil and links the drug to 32 unconfirmed deaths as well as higher incidences of fainting and blood clots than other vaccines.

Emily Tarsell started her daughter Christina on Gardasil — a vaccine that protects against four of the most common cancer-causing strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV) — after her first visit to a gynecologist and at the doctor’s recommendation.

Eighteen days after Christina received her final vaccine shot, she died.

“I know it was the Gardasil,” Tarsell said, although the official cause of death was undetermined. “They were really recommending it, saying that there weren’t any side effects, that it was safe. So I kind of went against my better instinct [and let her] get the shot.”

Deaths like Christina’s are one of several types of complications reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following Gardasil distribution in 2006, a summary of which appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association today. Some of these adverse events were serious, including blood clots and neurological disorders, and some were non-life threatening side effects from the vaccine, including fainting, nausea and fever.

Although experts agree that the accuracy of data from VAERS reports — which can be made by anyone and are not verified or controlled for quality — is questionable, they remain divided as to whether extreme adverse events, which are serious but rare, are cause enough to stop recommending and administering the Gardasil vaccine without further investigation.

Report Shows Rare But Serious Side Effects May Result From Gardasil Vaccine
“Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients,” said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”

As of June 1, 2009, the CDC reported that over 25 million doses of Gardasil, which is recommended for women between ages 9-26, have been distributed in the U.S. and there was an average of 53.9 VAERS reports per 100,000 vaccine doses. Of these, 40 percent occurred on the day of vaccination, and 6.2 percent were serious, including 32 reports of death.

VAERS Report Is No Measuring Stick For Gardasil Side Effects
“I’m pro preventing cervical cancer and HPV,” said Dr. Jacques Moritz, director of gynecology at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, who said he would not offer the Gardasil vaccine to patients when good cervical cancer screening techniques and treatments exist. “I’m not pro that the physicians don’t know the risks and side effects.”

But clinicians on both sides of the vaccination debate agree that data provided by the VAERS report is limited because it lacks any baseline comparison for the adverse events reported. This makes it difficult to draw cause and effect relationships when a death, for example, occurs soon after administering the Gardasil vaccine.

In fact, the JAMA study authors showed that 90 percent of those with blood clots had typical risk factors for clots, outside of having received the vaccine — using oral contraceptives, for example, or smoking.

“The problem is that there is a difference between an adverse reaction caused by the vaccine, as opposed to an adverse event reported in association with the vaccine,” said Dr. Lauren Streicher, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Northwestern Medical School, who supports use of the vaccine. “Patients need to understand the true risk of the vaccine, as well as the risks of not getting the vaccine.”

Understanding Risks and Side Effects Essential For Recommending Gardasil
The overwhelming consensus regarding Gardasil use is that physicians who are not well versed in the risks of HPV and cervical cancer and the side effects of the vaccine cannot adequately counsel patients whether or not to be vaccinated.

Dr. Joseph Zanga, chief of pediatrics at the Columbus Regional Healthcare System in Columbus, Ga., pointed out that Gardasil does not prevent women from contracting HPV in every instance, that many people who are infected will spontaneously rid themselves of the virus, and that routine pap smears are still the best prevention against cervical cancer.

“Perhaps the most important, currently missing ‘warning’ is that the vaccine may not be forever,” Zanga said. “We know that it protects for 5-7 years so that a girl getting the series at [age] 11-12 will enter the time of her most likely sexual debut unprotected but believing herself to be.”

Many Doctors Will Continue to Provide Gardasil
Dr. L. Stewart Massad, the Practice and Ethics Committees chair for the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, said his organization has educated thousands of clinicians about the risks of HPV and the Gardasil vaccine.

“We based our education [program] criteria on data from the CDC’s risk assessment,” he said. “Certainly there are differences of opinion when it comes to how adverse events are, you have to balance the risk for each patient.”

Massad also noted that the ASCCP was unable to secure government or other non-profit funding for education outreach programs when the vaccine was first introduced and turned instead to private companies, including Merck, which manufactures Gardasil.

Further Investigation of Adverse Reports Needed
Harper said that the next step in determining the severity of the risks associated with the Gardasil vaccine would be for the CDC to investigate the reported adverse events and verify a causal relationship. But this may prove a difficult task, she said, because many of those events were reported by Merck and did not include sufficient information to perform an investigation.

Still, the report is unlikely to prevent most doctors from continuing to provide the vaccine to patients.

“There are 772 serious problems identified in 23 million doses of vaccine,” said Dr. Kevin Ault, associate professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory University. “I usually tell my patients that these serious events are tragic, rare and likely unrelated to the vaccine.”

ABC News’ Tyeese Gaines-Reid contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

Leave a comment