HealthBeat News

Category: Women’s Health

  • The Many Health Benefits of Donating Blood

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

    An estimated 40,000 pints of donor blood are needed each day in the U.S. for patients with cancer, those undergoing orthopedic surgeries, marrow transplants and cardio vascular surgeries, people being treated for inherited blood disorders and those with acute injuries resulting in blood loss. There are other reasons why a blood transfusion might be needed but these are some of the “biggies” that occur every day. The need is always there.

    If you donate blood, you will be a hero and may help save someone’s life. But there’s more to it than you being a “good doobie.”
    Blood donors are rewarded with at least 3 personal health benefits. You read that right. Donating blood is healthy for the donor, not just the recipient.

    Here’s the scoop.

    There are at least three benefits of blood donation:

    1.) You get a Mini Health Screen. They check your blood pressure, pulse and temperature every time you donate. Getting a B.P. check every 3-4 months is a good thing and can alert you to any changes.

    2.) You get free lab testing. There are some tests that blood donation centers perform every time you donate. These are things that are good to know about and things that your doctor is unlikely to order unless there is an obvious reason.

    As part of the donation process, your blood will be screened for any or all of the following:

    On your first visit you will be tested for:

    I.) ABO Typing – provides determination of Blood type: A, B, O, or AB.
    II.) Rh factor Determination – indicates positive or negative Blood type.
    III.) Blood Group Antibodies – indicates unexpected antibodies that may be a result of prior transfusion, pregnancy or other factors.
    And at every visit you will be tested for these minimums:
    I.) Hepatitis B Surface Antigen – indicates a present infection (hepatitis) or carrier state of hepatitis B virus.
    II.) Antibody to Hepatitis B Core – additional test that detects a present or past infection with the hepatitis B virus.
    III.) Antibody to Hepatitis C Virus – indicates antibody to a virus that causes hepatitis C (responsible for non-A non-B hepatitis.) The mean incubation time is six to eight weeks.
    IV.) Antibody to HTLV – 1 and 2 – indicates the antibody to a virus that causes adult T-cell leukemia, among other things.
    V.) Antibody to HIV 1 and 2 – indicates an infection with Human Immune deficiency Virus. (virus that causes AIDs)
    VI.) Syphilis – screens for this venereal disease.
    VII) iron levels. (ferritin, or storage iron, is tested only in young adults)
    VIII.) Hemoglobin and hematocrit (this tells if you have enough red blood cells and iron)
    IX.) Nucleic acid testing (NAT) is a molecular technique for screening blood donations to reduce the risk of transfusion transmitted infections (TTIs) in the recipients, thus providing an additional layer of blood safety
    X.) total cholesterol

    Some donation centers also test for:

    I.) Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) – identifies a liver enzyme that, when increased, may indicate undetectable forms of hepatitis.
    II.) West Nile Virus
    III.) Chagas disease
    IV.) Zika virus
    V.) Babesiosis – a tick-born virus

    Hepatitis B, Hep C and HTLV can be transmitted without sexual contact, so don’t believe that these tests are only useful for those who practice unprotected sex with multiple partners. In fact, Hep C is an epidemic among Baby Boomers, in part because of previous blood transfusions before donor blood testing was performed and also because older folks are just as likely to practice unprotected sex as younger folks.

    West Nile and Zika are mosquito-transmitted diseases and Chagas disease is transmitted by “kissing bugs.” These “bug transmitted” diseases can be mild or can cause symptoms and problems up to and including death.

    Discussing each of these diseases is beyond the scope of this article but Google them and you’ll see why they are worth knowing about.

    3.) You get to normalize / optimize your storage iron levels (ferritin). The donation center doesn’t check your serum ferritin levels (storage iron) unless you are a young adult. They do evaluate circulating iron in your blood to make sure you are not anemic on the day you donate. Giving blood decreases storage iron and that’s a good thing. Here’s why.

    Ferritin is an iron storage protein that is a measure of body iron stores. High levels (even “high normal” within the normal range) increases free radical production and is highly associated with increased risk of atherosclerosis and peripheral vascular disease.

    Serum ferritin is one of the strongest risk predictors of overall progression of atherosclerosis.(1-10). This is big and because of the evidence, I consider ferritin one of the four most important anti-aging/longevity tests that can be performed.

    The degree to which ferritin will be lowered varies among individuals, so I recommend periodic testing (say, 6 weeks after donation) to help gauge how often to donate.

    On the other hand, if you are anemic without a known reason (you’re not a female of menstrual age, for example), finding this out might save your life. Unseen (occult) bleeding from the colon, for example, can be a sign of polyps or cancer. Unexplained anemia needs to be followed up, and you’ll have benefit of this information more frequently when you are a 3-4 times per year blood donor.

    Wouldn’t it be great to know that you were helping yourself and also helping someone else?

    Bottom line: “Hero points” aside, most people should be donating blood 2-4 times per year for health reasons. You can help save a life while benefitting your own health. There are very few medical “treatments” that offer such a “win-win”!

    Ask your doctor if you are a candidate for donating blood (most people are), then call one of the local blood drives and get yourself signed up. Your “future self” will thank you.

    References:

    1. Alissa EM, Ahmed WH, Al-Ama N, Ferns GA. Relationship between indices of iron status and coronary risk factors including diabetes and the metabolic syndrome in Saudi subjects without overt coronary disease. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2007;21(4):242-54. Epub 2007 Aug 7

    2. Ahluwalia N, Genoux A, Ferrieres J, Perret B, Carayol M, Drouet L, Ruidavets JB. Iron status is associated with carotid atherosclerotic plaques in middle-aged adults. J Nutr. 2010 Apr;140(4):812-6. Epub 2010 Feb 24.

    3. de Godoy MF, Takakura IT, Machado RD, Grassi LV, Nogueira PR. Serum ferritin and obstructive coronary artery disease: angiographic correlation. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007 Apr;88(4):430-3.

    4. Depalma RG, Hayes VW, Chow BK, Shamayeva G, May PE, Zacharski LR. Ferritin levels, inflammatory biomarkers, and mortality in peripheral arterial disease: a substudy of the Iron (Fe) and Atherosclerosis Study (FeAST) Trial. J Vasc Surg. 2010 Jun;51(6):1498-503. Epub 2010 Mar 20

    5. Kiechl S, Willeit J, Egger G, Poewe W, Oberhollenzer F.Body iron stores and the risk of carotid atherosclerosis: prospective results from the Bruneck study.Circulation. 1997 Nov 18;96(10):3300-7.

    6. Lee KR, Sweeney G, Kim WY, Kim KK. Serum ferritin is linked with aortic stiffness in apparently healthy Korean women. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2010 Sep;9(3):160-3

    7. Mainous AG 3rd, Diaz VA. Relation of serum ferritin level to cardiovascular fitness among young men. Am J Cardiol. 2009 Jan 1;103(1):115-8. Epub 2008 Oct 17.

    8. Menke A, Fernández-Real JM, Muntner P, Guallar E. The association of biomarkers of iron status with peripheral arterial disease in US adults. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2009 Aug 3;9:34.

    9. Valenti L, Swinkels DW, Burdick L, Dongiovanni P, Tjalsma H, Motta BM, Bertelli C, Fatta E, Bignamini D, Rametta R, Fargion S, Fracanzani AL. Serum ferritin levels are associated with vascular damage in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2011 Aug;21(8):568-75. Epub 2010 Apr 13.

    10. Zacharski LR, Shamayeva G, Chow BK. Effect of controlled reduction of body iron stores on clinical outcomes in peripheral arterial disease. Am Heart J. 2011 Nov;162(5):949-957.

     

  • Why that Little Pink Ribbon Has Me Seeing Red

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    October is “Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” and the little pink ribbons are as plentiful as Halloween candy.

    Pink is everywhere – on kitchen appliances, on NFL football players, even pink beer…

    Have you ever given money to breast cancer research or purchased a “little pink ribbon” to show your support and solidarity? If you have, I believe you’ve been duped by Big Pharma’s and Big Government’s bogus “research projects,” and thrown good money toward a losing game.

    Before you shoot the messenger, let me explain why the “little pink ribbon” has me seeing red.

    Problems abound with breast cancer fund-raising and research:

    First, Money often doesn’t go to actual research.

     

    As much as 90% of revenues can be spent on “administrative” and “fundraising” costs. Depending on which charity your money goes to, the actual money generated for gifting can be less than 10%. That’s ugly.

    To find out which charities retain most of their revenues for genuine research contribution, check out your favorite charity at http://www.charitynavigator.org/

    For example, in past years we reported that the Coalition Against Breast Cancer had a very poor record and spent the majority of it’s income on “administrative costs.” In 2011 according to CharityNavigator.org the Coalition Against Breast Cancer was shut down for fraud:

      • New York’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit to shut down Coalition Against Breast Cancer, calling it a sham charity, for fraudulently raising millions of dollars under the guise of fighting breast cancer, only to funnel the money to organization insiders and fundraisers.
      • In August 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that two of the people behind this organization plead guilty to grand larceny, scheming to defraud and falsifying business records. They still face a civil lawsuit.

    The American Breast Cancer Foundation spends 76% of it’s income on administrative and fund-raising costs

    The United Breast Cancer Foundation spends 71% of revenues on admin and fundraising

    Even the mighty Komen Foundation has been hit with controversy, and has been accused of overstating the supposed benefits of mammograms while downplaying the risks. Interestingly, General Electric, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of mammography machines, is a major corporate donor to the Komen Foundation…

    And “Think Before You Pink,” a service of Breast Cancer Action, offers some additional tips and insider information about donating to breast cancer research:

    When you “give to the cure,” you might want to verify where your money is going and how much of it is actually being spent on breast cancer research.

    Second, Money funds more conventional cancer research, but conventional research, diagnosis and treatments are not improving cancer mortality rates significantly.

     

    Conventional breast cancer treatments don’t work. At least not very well. Cancer research organizations that put money into Big Pharma are betting on the wrong horse.

    Despite press releases and proclamations which tell us that we’re “winning the war on breast cancer” (thanks, of course, to all of our collective millions of giving), the truth is that conventional cancer diagnosis and treatment have gotten us next to nowhere.

    According to statistics published by the National Cancer Institute, the breast cancer rate has declined 1.7% between 1998 and 2007. That, they say, is a “significant” change.(1)

    Of course, we are led to believe that this 1.7% drop is due to improvements in diagnosis (mammograms) and conventional treatment. But the statistics show otherwise.

    Instead, the single biggest drop in breast cancer rates of all time occurred in 2002-2003 when women flocked away from conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after news “broke” that it increased breast cancer risk. According to the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates fell 6.7% — a heck of a lot bigger drop than the 1.7% being touted – when over 40 million women stopped taking conventional hormone prescriptions. (2) Actually, the association between HRT and breast cancer was known as early as the 1960′s. (3) For shame.

    In Canada, a 9.6% drop in breast cancer rates was noted when hormone replacement therapy use declined.(4)

    Whether it be a 6.7% or a 9.6% drop, that’s a much bigger improvement that our 1.7% “statistically significant” decrease claimed in the US as a result of millions of dollars of mammogram screenings and expensive chemotherapy.

    The single biggest drop we’ve seen in recent years in breast cancer happened when women flocked away from conventional hormone therapy in droves. In other words, the best thing that conventional medicine has done to stem the tide of breast cancer is to have women “just say no” to a breast-cancer-causing conventional hormone treatment!

    So, the “significant” 1.7% decrease in breast cancer rates in over a decade includes the 6.7% drop in breast cancer due to women discontinuing conventional hormone replacement therapy. Instead of a new drug or surgical treatment being responsible for this modest decline in breast cancer rates, the decline is actually due to women avoiding a dangerous conventional drug.

    This also begs the question — if we are to believe that a 1.7% drop in cancer incidence is “significant,” how come the 2.7 increase between 1995-1998 was not also “significant”? And how come the 6.7% drop when millions of women stopped conventional HRT isn’t WAY significant? (1) Are we perhaps over-selling the “winning the war” statistics in order to give people a warm fuzzy and encourage them to keep contributing?

    Much more is known about how to prevent cancer than how to cure it.

    Of the millions of dollars raised and donated to conventional cancer research, how come none of this money — nay, not even a little bit of it — is spent educating women on prevention? After all, an ounce of prevention really IS worth a pound of cure.

    Forget the measly 1.7% decline in breast cancer rates over the past 9 years, let’s talk about what is known about prevention. The preventive aspects of breast cancer, and how much the risks can be lowered, make the “statistically significant 1.7%” look even more ridiculous. Consider the truly huge improvements in breast cancer rates that could be achieved with known preventive measures.

    Overweight/obesity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen. We already know about the estrogen/breast cancer connection. The fatter a woman, the more breast cancer risk, at least for post-menopausal females. How big is this risk?

    Women who gain 55 pounds or more after age 18 have a 50% greater risk of breast cancer compared with those who maintained their weight. A gain of 22 pounds or more after menopause was associated with an increased risk of 18%, whereas losing at least 22 pounds after menopause and maintaining the weight loss was associated with 57% lower breast cancer risk. In case you missed this, let me repeat, a whopping FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT DECREASED RISK by losing 22 pounds. (5)

    This is incredible news. Instead of putting pink ribbons on buckets of fast-food chicken, why aren’t these “concerned” cancer organizations telling women to back away from the fried chicken, shed a few pounds and drop their risk of breast cancer like a rock?

    Exercise. Invasive, estrogen-receptor negative cancers (less common, more deadly) can be reduced 55 percent by long-term, strenuous physical activity or 47% by long-term moderate physical activity. This amounts to 5 hours of exercise per week. (6) Let’s see…. a 47% drop compared to a 1.7% drop? “Long-term means you start exercising when you are a young woman and continue weekly exercise throughout life. Shouldn’t some of the “little pink ribbon” money be spent educating young women about the profound reduction in cancer risk from a modest amount of exercise, instead of just selling annual mammogram screening?

    Even if you didn’t start exercising as a younger woman, it’s never too late to benefit. In one study from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) as little as 1.25 to 2.5 hours per week of brisk walking reduced a woman’s risk by 18%. (7) Let’s see… 18% vs. 1.7%… Did you hear any of this from the “little pink ribbon” sponsors?

    Alcohol contributes a small additional risk. Women who drink 2-5 drinks per day have 1 1/2 times the risk as non-drinkers. The effect is magnified in women who use conventional hormone replacement therapy. (8) This amounts to a small increase in risk, but remember — all the millions of dollars of “little pink ribbon” money have amounted to only a small decrease in risk.

    Why should you and I fund Big Pharma’s search for newer, deadlier, ineffective drugs that they are going to profit from? Fund your own darned drug studies I say …

    Alrighty, so you run your butt off in a “race for the cure,” to raise money to assist drug companies in researching more drugs. Some of these drugs cost upwards of $10,000/month to the patient (while costing the drug companies a pittance).

    And then YOU get breast cancer. Do you get a discount because you helped Big Pharma fund a drug that might increase your survival by maybe 8 weeks? NO. You, or more likely your insurer, will be paying full price for your treatment.

    Mike Adams sums this warped situation up succinctly:

    “For most diseases, the race for the cure is really just a way for drug companies to shift R&D costs to suckers. You fund the R&D, and then you get to pay full price for the drug they drummed up thanks to your generous donation. “ – Mike Adams

     

    Dr. Myatt’s Summary:

    Millions of dollars spent over the last 3 decades and what do we have? A mere 1.7% reduction in breast cancer mortality. And most if not ALL of this decrease is due to declining use of conventional hormone therapy.

    On the other hand, we already know simple ways to slash breast cancer risk by up to 50% and more.

    Until some of the “little pink ribbon” money goes toward public education about how to reduce risks, and some of the money goes to research non-toxic treatments, and until the “little pink ribbon” folks don’t whore their honor by allowing their icons on junk food and toxic perfumes, I’m keeping my money closer to home.

     

    References

    1.) Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/, based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2010. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html#incidence-mortality

    The joinpoint trend in SEER cancer incidence with associated APC(%) for cancer of the breast between 1975-2007, All Races Female

    Trend Period

    -0.5 1975-1980

    3.9* 1980-1987

    -0.1 1987-1995

    2.7 1995-1998

    -1.7* 1998-2007

    If there is a negative sign before the number, the trend is a decrease; otherwise it is an increase. If there is an asterisk after the APC then the trend was significant, that is, one believes that it is beyond chance, i.e. 95% sure,

    2.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2007/breastincidencedrop

    3.) McCarthy JD. Influence of two contraceptives on induction of mammary cancer in rats. Am J Surg. 1965 Nov;110(5):720-3.

    4.) Breast Cancer , accessed 10-26-10: http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/new_research/20100924.jsp

    5.) Morimoto LM, White E, Chen Z, et al. Obesity, body size, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative (United States). Cancer Causes Control. Oct 2002;13(8):741-751.

    6.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    Ref: http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/ncicancerbulletin/archive/2008/102108/page8

    7.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

    8.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

  • Breast Cancer Month – And That Little Pink Ribbon Again

    (Why the Little Pink Ribbon Has Me Seeing Red)

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    October is “Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” and the little pink ribbons are as plentiful as Halloween candy.

     

    Have you ever given money to breast cancer research or purchased a “little pink ribbon” to show your support and solidarity? If you have, I believe you’ve been duped by Big Pharma’s and Big Government’s bogus “research projects,” and thrown good money toward a losing game.

    Before you shoot the messenger, let me explain why the “little pink ribbon” has me seeing red.

    Problems abound with breast cancer fund-raising and research:

    First, Money often doesn’t go to actual research.

    As much as 90% of revenues can be spent on “administrative” and “fundraising” costs. Depending on which charity your money goes to, the actual money generated for gifting can be less than 10%. That’s ugly.

    To find out which charities retain most of their revenues for genuine research contribution, check out your favorite charity at http://www.charitynavigator.org/

    For example, last year we reported that the Coalition Against Breast Cancer had a very poor record and spent the majority of it’s income on “administrative costs.” This year according to CharityNavigator.org the Coalition Against Breast Cancer has been shut down for fraud:

      • New York’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit to shut down Coalition Against Breast Cancer, calling it a sham charity, for fraudulently raising millions of dollars under the guise of fighting breast cancer, only to funnel the money to organization insiders and fundraisers.
      • In August 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that two of the people behind this organization plead guilty to grand larceny, scheming to defraud and falsifying business records. They still face a civil lawsuit.

    The American Breast Cancer Foundation spends 76% of it’s income on administrative and fund-raising costs

    The United Breast Cancer Foundation spends 71% of revenues on admin and fundraising

    Even the mighty Komen Foundation has been hit with controversy this last year, and has been accused of overstating the supposed benefits of mammograms while downplaying the risks. Interestingly, General Electric, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of mammography machines, is a major corporate donor to the Komen Foundation…

    And “Think Before You Pink,” a service of Breast Cancer Action, offers some additional tips and insider information about donating to breast cancer research:

    When you “give to the cure,” you might want to verify where your money is going and how much of it is actually being spent on breast cancer research.

    Second, Money funds more conventional cancer research, but conventional research, diagnosis and treatments are not improving cancer mortality rates significantly.

    Conventional breast cancer treatments don’t work. At least not very well. Cancer research organizations that put money into Big Pharma are betting on the wrong horse.

    Despite press releases and proclamations which tell us that we’re “winning the war on breast cancer” (thanks, of course, to all of our collective millions of giving), the truth is that conventional cancer diagnosis and treatment have gotten us next to nowhere.

    According to statistics published by the National Cancer Institute, the breast cancer rate has declined 1.7% between 1998 and 2007. That, they say, is a “significant” change.(1)

    Of course, we are led to believe that this 1.7% drop is due to improvements in diagnosis (mammograms) and conventional treatment. But the statistics show otherwise.

    Instead, the single biggest drop in breast cancer rates of all time occurred in 2002-2003 when women flocked away from conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after news “broke” that it increased breast cancer risk. According to the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates fell 6.7% — a heck of a lot bigger drop than the 1.7% being touted – when over 40 million women stopped taking conventional hormone prescriptions. (2) Actually, the association between HRT and breast cancer was known as early as the 1960′s. (3) For shame.

    In Canada, a 9.6% drop in breast cancer rates was noted when hormone replacement therapy use declined.(4)

    Whether it be a 6.7% or a 9.6% drop, that’s a much bigger improvement that our 1.7% “statistically significant” decrease claimed in the US as a result of millions of dollars of mammogram screenings and expensive chemotherapy.

    The single biggest drop we’ve seen in recent years in breast cancer happened when women flocked away from conventional hormone therapy in droves. In other words, the best thing that conventional medicine has done to stem the tide of breast cancer is to have women “just say no” to a breast-cancer-causing conventional hormone treatment!

    So, the “significant” 1.7% decrease in breast cancer rates in over a decade includes the 6.7% drop in breast cancer due to women discontinuing conventional hormone replacement therapy. Instead of a new drug or surgical treatment being responsible for this modest decline in breast cancer rates, the decline is actually due to women avoiding a dangerous conventional drug.

    This also begs the question — if we are to believe that a 1.7% drop in cancer incidence is “significant,” how come the 2.7 increase between 1995-1998 was not also “significant”? And how come the 6.7% drop when millions of women stopped conventional HRT isn’t WAY significant? (1) Are we perhaps over-selling the “winning the war” statistics in order to give people a warm fuzzy and encourage them to keep contributing?

    Much more is known about how to prevent cancer than how to cure it.

    Of the millions of dollars raised and donated to conventional cancer research, how come none of this money — nay, not even a little bit of it — is spent educating women on prevention? After all, an ounce of prevention really IS worth a pound of cure.

    Forget the measly 1.7% decline in breast cancer rates over the past 9 years, let’s talk about what is known about prevention. The preventive aspects of breast cancer, and how much the risks can be lowered, make the “statistically significant 1.7%” look even more ridiculous. Consider the truly huge improvements in breast cancer rates that could be achieved with known preventive measures.

    Overweight/obesity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen. We already know about the estrogen/breast cancer connection. The fatter a woman, the more breast cancer risk, at least for post-menopausal females. How big is this risk?

    Women who gain 55 pounds or more after age 18 have a 50% greater risk of breast cancer compared with those who maintained their weight. A gain of 22 pounds or more after menopause was associated with an increased risk of 18%, whereas losing at least 22 pounds after menopause and maintaining the weight loss was associated with 57% lower breast cancer risk. In case you missed this, let me repeat, a whopping FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT DECREASED RISK by losing 22 pounds. (5)

    This is incredible news. Instead of putting pink ribbons on buckets of fast-food chicken, why aren’t these “concerned” cancer organizations telling women to back away from the fried chicken, shed a few pounds and drop their risk of breast cancer like a rock?

    Exercise. Invasive, estrogen-receptor negative cancers (less common, more deadly) can be reduced 55 percent by long-term, strenuous physical activity or 47% by long-term moderate physical activity. This amounts to 5 hours of exercise per week. (6) Let’s see…. a 47% drop compared to a 1.7% drop? “Long-term means you start exercising when you are a young woman and continue weekly exercise throughout life. Shouldn’t some of the “little pink ribbon” money be spent educating young women about the profound reduction in cancer risk from a modest amount of exercise, instead of just selling annual mammogram screening?

    Even if you didn’t start exercising as a younger woman, it’s never too late to benefit. In one study from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) as little as 1.25 to 2.5 hours per week of brisk walking reduced a woman’s risk by 18%. (7) Let’s see… 18% vs. 1.7%… Did you hear any of this from the “little pink ribbon” sponsors?

    Alcohol contributes a small additional risk. Women who drink 2-5 drinks per day have 1 1/2 times the risk as non-drinkers. The effect is magnified in women who use conventional hormone replacement therapy. (8) This amounts to a small increase in risk, but remember — all the millions of dollars of “little pink ribbon” money have amounted to only a small decrease in risk.

    Why should you and I fund Big Pharma’s search for newer, deadlier, ineffective drugs that they are going to profit from? Fund your own darned drug studies I say …

    Alrighty, so you run your butt off in a “race for the cure,” to raise money to assist drug companies in researching more drugs. Some of these drugs cost upwards of $10,000/month to the patient (while costing the drug companies a pittance).

    And then YOU get breast cancer. Do you get a discount because you helped Big Pharma fund a drug that might increase your survival by maybe 8 weeks? NO. You, or more likely your insurer, will be paying full price for your treatment.

    Mike Adams sums this warped situation up succinctly:

    “For most diseases, the race for the cure is really just a way for drug companies to shift R&D costs to suckers. You fund the R&D, and then you get to pay full price for the drug they drummed up thanks to your generous donation. “ – Mike Adams

    Dr. Myatt’s Summary: millions of dollars spent over the last 3 decades and what do we have? A mere 1.7% reduction in breast cancer mortality. And most if not ALL of this decrease is due to declining use of conventional hormone therapy.

    On the other hand, we already know simple ways to slash breast cancer risk by up to 50% and more.

    Until some of the “little pink ribbon” money goes toward public education about how to reduce risks, and some of the money goes to research non-toxic treatments, and until the “little pink ribbon” folks don’t whore their honor by allowing their icons on junk food and toxic perfumes, I’m keeping my money closer to home.

    References

    1.) Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/, based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2010. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html#incidence-mortality

    The joinpoint trend in SEER cancer incidence with associated APC(%) for cancer of the breast between 1975-2007, All Races Female

    Trend Period

    -0.5 1975-1980

    3.9* 1980-1987

    -0.1 1987-1995

    2.7 1995-1998

    -1.7* 1998-2007

    If there is a negative sign before the number, the trend is a decrease; otherwise it is an increase. If there is an asterisk after the APC then the trend was significant, that is, one believes that it is beyond chance, i.e. 95% sure,

    2.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2007/breastincidencedrop

    3.) McCarthy JD. Influence of two contraceptives on induction of mammary cancer in rats. Am J Surg. 1965 Nov;110(5):720-3.

    4.) Breast Cancer , accessed 10-26-10: http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/new_research/20100924.jsp

    5.) Morimoto LM, White E, Chen Z, et al. Obesity, body size, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative (United States). Cancer Causes Control. Oct 2002;13(8):741-751.

    6.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    Ref: http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/ncicancerbulletin/archive/2008/102108/page8

    7.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

    8.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

  • Bio-Identical Hormone Therapy – Dr. Myatt Brings You The Truth

    Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy Is A Complicated Subject.

     

    Because it is so complicated it is a subject surrounded by half-truths, urban legends, and outright B.S. (that’s Bad Science…)

     

    Bio-Identical hormone replacement isn’t just for women any more. Men benefit as well.

     

    But whether you are a man or a woman, how can you know what is real, and what is hype? What is safe, and how can you know that you are receiving the best advice from your doctor on this important subject?

    Dr. Myatt has done the deep research on this issue and has combined cutting-edge findings with her more than two decades of clinical experience in Bio-Identical Hormone Therapy to create a balanced and heavily referenced position paper that discusses Bio-Identical Hormone Therapy treatment modalities, hormone testing, and the pros and cons of Bio-Identical Hormone Therapy and conventional hormone therapy.

    As HealthBeat News Readers, you have access to this paper – click here to read Dr. Myatt’s paper Bio-identical (Natural) Hormone Replacement Therapy and Other Natural Hormone-Balancing Therapies

  • Candida: A Diagnosis Often Missed, Sometimes Overdiagnosed.

    Candida: A Diagnosis Often Missed, Sometimes Overdiagnosed

     

    A recent question to the Wellness Club went as follows:

     

    Hi Dr.Myatt,
    I just wanted to know whether stool test is enough to find out whether I have candida overgrowth because I seem to be suffering from most of the symptoms.
    Thank you.

     

    We get a lot of questions like this – and unfortunately, health is rarely so simple (despite what Big Pharma and Big Medicine would like you to believe!). Sure, there are tests – but how to know which test, and then how to know what to make of the results of the test? This is tough enough for many doctors – and almost impossible for most laypersons.

    Even though your local shopping mall may have almost as many walk-in whole-body CAT scan offices as they do tanning salons, our medical diagnostics have not yet evolved to the level of the “Medical Tricorder” wielded by the famous Dr. “Bones” McCoy in the old Star Trek TV Series. “Bones” would wave this marvelous warbling testing gadget over his patient and it would give him an instant and accurate diagnosis and treatment plan.

    Real life in today’s world is not so easy – too bad – and today’s physician must be skilled in interpreting and helping patients to make sense of test results.

    Dr. Myatt has this advise for Rimsha:

    Hi Rimsha:

    A person can have a yeast overgrowth that might not show up on just a stool test.

    For a more complete look, I’d recommend both a stool yeast test AND a Candida antibody test:

    Candida stool test:
    http://drmyattswellnessclub.com/medicaltests.htm#CANDIDA

    Candida antibodies test:
    http://drmyattswellnessclub.com/medicaltests.htm#CANDIDA ANTIBODIES

    Low-level overgrowth of Candida yeast species can cause a wide variety of health problems, but yeast may not be found in a stool specimen. This is because the yeast may have invaded elsewhere in the body, such as in the urinary tract, sinus passages, vagina or elsewhere.

    The Candida antibodies test uses a drop of blood to evaluate for an immune system reaction to Candida. It assesses IgG, IgA, IgM immunoglobulins to yeast as well as Candida antigen. A positive finding indicates past or present Candida infection and may allow Candida yeast reactions to be found when stool and vaginal specimens are negative or inconclusive.

    If these two tests don’t point to a yeast overgrowth (as they may not), then other things need to be looked at. Learn more here http://drmyattswellnessclub.com/candidiasis.htm but here’s the “short course.”

    Candidiasis: The Elusive Diagnosis

    The diagnosis of Candidiasis is often overlooked in conventional medicine.

    Many doctors say they “Don’t believe in Candidiasis,” even though there is ample scientific evidence to document the condition. It is difficult to say exactly why this condition is ignored by conventional medicine in spite of the vast scientific evidence, but I offer you my theories for such conventional medical ignorance:

    • The symptoms of Candidiasis are widespread and can mimic many other diseases. There is no definitive lab test that confirms the disease. This makes correct diagnosis difficult.
    • Some “holistic” practitioners diagnose everything as Candidiasis, thereby missing other important diagnoses. This has given the problem of Candidiasis a “pop diagnosis” reputation among many physicians. As a result, non-holistic doctors are then reluctant to recognize true cases of Candidiasis.
    • One of the primary causes of Candidiasis is the overuse and inappropriate use of antibiotics, steroids, birth control pills and other drugs. To acknowledge Candidiasis as a disease is to also acknowledge a problem often caused by drugs!

    Hope this helps!
    In health,
    Dr. Myatt