HealthBeat News

Category: Women’s Health

  • That Little Pink Ribbon Has Me Seeing Red

    Bogus Breast Cancer Research

     

    (Why the Little Pink Ribbon Has Me Seeing Red)

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    October is “Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” and 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:

    1.) 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, the Coalition Against Breast Cancer spends 78% of it’s budget hiring for-profit fundraisers:

    The American Breast Cancer Foundation spends 50% of it’s income on administrative and fund-raising costs:

    The United Breast Cancer Foundation spends 59% of revenues on admin and fundraising:

    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.

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

    I.) 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?

    II.) 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.

    3.) 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 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%

    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, 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

  • Strontium: The Missing Mineral for Strong Bones

    Strontium: The Missing Mineral for Strong Bones

    Strontium is a naturally occurring mineral, in the same mineral family as calcium and magnesium, and it’s been shown to promote bone growth in both animals and people.

    Before you get nervous, let’s clarify something: this is NOT the radioactive “strontium 90” that many of us were forced to hide from under our schoolroom desks in the 1950s during “A-bomb drills.” The strontium I’m talking about is an all-natural, non-radioactive mineral that is very safe.

    Strontium has been studied since the early 1900’s for its effect on bone density.

    In 1910, one German researcher reported that strontium appeared to be uniquely effective in stimulating rapid bone formation.

    A decade later, another researcher concluded that strontium and calcium were superior to calcium alone in mineralizing bone.

    In 1952, a report from Cornell University found  that calcium and strontium work better together than calcium alone for rebuilding bone.

    A Mayo Clinic study conducted in 1959 looked at 22 individuals with severe (and painful) osteoporosis. Part of the group took 1,700 milligrams of strontium daily. Another group took the same amount of strontium with estrogen and testosterone. In the “hormones plus strontium” group, 9 of 10 people experienced marked improvement of their symptoms, and the other one had moderate improvement. In the strontium-only group, 18 of 22 had marked improvement and the other four had moderate improvement. Bottom line: every person in this study had moderate to marked improvement using strontium.

    After this study, there wasn’t much scientific research concerning strontium for quite some time. Since strontium is a naturally-occurring mineral and can’t be patented “as is,” one wonders if the Big Pharmaceutical companies were uninterested until they could trademark some form of this promising substance. Research on many promising natural substances is woefully neglected until Big Pharma can figure out a way to profit.

    In 1979, another study was performed on a group of patients with metastatic bone cancer (cancer that has spread to bone). The results showed an improvement in bone density and decreased bone pain in the strontium-treated group.

    In 1985, another study followed the effects of strontium supplementation on bone formation in six humans. By performing “before and after” bone biopsies, researchers concluded that “Following strontium therapy, all [measurements] of bone formation increased, while bone resorption remained unchanged.”

    Sixteen years later, a research group reviewed the studies on strontium and concluded that  “In addition to its anti-resorptive activity, strontium was found to have anabolic (tissue-building) activity in bone.”

    These studies have used strontium carbonate, strontium lactate and strontium gluconate. All forms of strontium have produced positive effect, indicating that it is the strontium itself that is active and not what it is bound to. Why do I mention this little “factoid?” So that Big Pharma can’t fool you into buying an expensive drug form of strontium when a simple supplemental form should work as well.

    Naturally, the most recent strontium-osteoporosis research has been performed by a drug company using a patentable strontium combination. (Remember, strontium by itself isn’t patentable because it is a naturally-occurring substance). But combined with a synthetic substance called ranelic acid, strontium becomes a patentable drug.

    This “drug” is available in Europe as the trademarked Protos® but all studies before this suggest that it is the strontium itself which is responsible for bone-building effects. Strontium ranelate is not approved for use by the FDA.

    In a three-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study using 680 milligrams of strontium daily, women suffering from osteoporosis had a 41 percent reduction vertebral fractures compared with placebo. The overall vertebrae density in the strontium group increased by 11.4 percent compared to a 1.3 percent decrease in the placebo group.

    In another recent study,  353 women who had already experienced at least one osteoporosis-related vertebral fracture took varying levels of strontium ranelate or a placebo. In the group who tool 680 milligrams of strontium daily, there was a 3% increase in lumbar bone mineral density per year, significantly greater than placebo. At the end of the second year of the study, there was a significant decrease in fractures in the strontium group compared to placebo.

    In a 2002 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 160 post-menopausal females who did not have osteoporosis were asked to take placebo or varying amounts of strontium daily. Compared to the placebo group, women who took 340 milligrams strontium a day had a significant increase in bone mineral density in two years time. All groups also took 500 milligrams of calcium daily, but no hormones or vitamin D.

    It appears that not only can prevent osteoporosis, it can repair existing damage. And it doesn’t seem to matter what form it is in: strontium ranelate (a patented drug in Europe), strontium gluconate, strontium lactate, or strontium carbonate. It’s the mineral strontium itself that works the magic on bone!

    Sources of Strontium

    Bad news: there’s not enough strontium in food to have a significant effect if you already have osteoporosis.

    If you have a diagnosis of osteoporosis, you should take strontium in supplement form.

    If you don’t currently have osteoporosis, then eating plenty of food high in strontium “may” be enough to protect you.

    Foods high in strontium include spices, seafood, whole grains, root and leafy vegetables, and legumes.

    If you want to be on the safe side concerning osteoporosis prevention, consider taking one dose of strontium (200-400mg) per day.  For those without osteoporosis but with known risk factors (family history, immobility, smoking, etc.) one capsule twice daily is prudent.

    Also be sure to take the recommended calcium (1,200-1,500 milligrams for post-menopausal females) plus associated bone nutrients including magnesium, zinc, boron and vitamin D. I recommend a combination of Cal-Mag Amino and Strontium (taken at separate times of the day) for osteoporosis prevention and reversal.

    NOTE: Our multivitamin Maxi Multi does not contain strontium. If you see a “bone formula” with strontium, don’t take it! Strontium should be taken away from calcium and magnesium for best absorption.

     

    References

    1.) Strontium Ranelate Reduces the Risk of Nonvertebral Fractures in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis: Treatment of Peripheral Osteoporosis (TROPOS) Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 May; 90(5):2816-22. Epub 2005 Feb 22.
    2.) Picking a bone with contemporary osteoporosis management: Nutrient strategies to enhance skeletal integrity. Clinical Nutrition (Epub ahead of print, 2006 October 12).
    3.) The effects of strontium ranelate on the risk of vertebral fracture in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.” New England Journal of Medicine 350 (2004):459 – 68.
    4.) Strontium ranelate reduces the risk of nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: Treatment of Peripheral Osteoporosis (TROPOS) study. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 90 (2005):2816 – 22.
    5.) Strontium in Finnish foods. International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research 52 (1982): 342 – 50.
    6.) Gaby AR. Preventing and Reversing Osteoporosis. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1994, 85–92 [review].
    7.) Strontium ranelate: a dual mode of action rebalancing bone turnover in favour of bone formation. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2006 Jun;18 Suppl 1:S11-5.

  • PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) – Tragic But Treatable

    PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)

     

    PCOS is a tragedy because it affects so many young women who desperately want to have babies of their own – and it affects their partners and other family members as well.

     

    What is PCOS?

     

    PCOS is a condition in which a woman’s ovaries and, in some cases the adrenal glands, produce more androgens (a type of hormone) than normal.  High levels of these hormones interfere with the development and release of eggs as part of ovulation.  As a result, fluid-filled sacs or cysts can develop on the ovaries.

    Because women with PCOS do not release eggs during ovulation, PCOS is the most common cause of female infertility.

    How does PCOS affect fertility?

     

    A woman’s ovaries have follicles, which are tiny, fluid-filled sacs that hold the eggs. When an egg is mature, the follicle breaks open to release the egg so it can travel to the uterus for fertilization.

    In women with PCOS, immature follicles bunch together to form large cysts or lumps. The eggs mature within the bunched follicles, but the follicles don’t break open to release them.

    As a result, women with PCOS often have menstrual irregularities, such as amenorrhea (they don’t get menstrual periods) or oligomenorrhea (they only have periods now and then). Because the eggs are not released, most women with PCOS have trouble getting pregnant.

    What are the symptoms of PCOS?

     

    In addition to infertility, women with PCOS may also have:

    • Pelvic pain
    • Hirsutism, or excess hair growth on the face, chest, stomach, thumbs, or toes
    • Male-pattern baldness or thinning hair
    • Acne, oily skin, or dandruff
    • Patches of thickened and dark brown or black skin

    Also, women who are obese are more likely to have PCOS.

    Although it is hard for women with PCOS to get pregnant, some do get pregnant, naturally or using assistive reproductive technology.  Women with PCOS are at higher risk for miscarriage if they do become pregnant.

    Women with PCOS are also at higher risk for associated conditions, such as:

    • Diabetes
    • Metabolic syndrome—sometimes called a precursor to diabetes, this syndrome indicates that the body has trouble regulating its insulin
    • Cardiovascular disease—including heart disease and high blood pressure

    What is the treatment for PCOS?

     

    Conventional medicine says here is no cure for PCOS, but holistic doctors like Dr. Myatt believe that many of the symptoms can often be managed, improved greatly, or even eliminated with carefully targeted natural therapies.

    It is important to have PCOS diagnosed and treated early to help prevent associated problems.

    Conventional medicine will offer medications that may help control the symptoms, such as birth control pills to regulate menstruation, reduce androgen levels, and clear acne. Other medications can reduce cosmetic problems, such as hair growth, and control blood pressure and cholesterol. Many of these medicines have significant, serious, even dangerous side effects.

    Naturopathic physicians like Dr. Myatt can offer more natural solutions including metabolic modification diets, hormone testing and balancing, strategies for the reduction of inflammatory factors, and more.

    Lifestyle changes such as corrective diet and regular exercise will aid weight loss and help reduce blood sugar levels and regulate insulin levels more effectively.  Weight loss can help lessen many of the health conditions associated with PCOS and can make symptoms be less severe or even disappear.

    Surgical treatment may also be offered as an option, but it is not recommended as the first course of treatment.

    Recent research has also examined the effects of the anti-diabetes drug metformin on fertility in women with PCOS. Dr. Myatt can help her patients to understand the mechanisms of this option.

    How is PCOS diagnosed?

     

    Your health care provider will take a medical history and do a pelvic exam to feel for cysts on your ovaries.  He or she may also do a vaginal ultrasound and recommend blood tests to measure hormone levels.

    When examining hormone levels, remember that your conventional doctor will almost always order a blood test. (and it is likely that a blood test is the only hormone test your disease insurance will pay for) This blood test, while technically accurate, is only a “snapshot” – an accurate picture of your hormone levels only at the moment the test was performed.

    Sex hormones are made and secreted in “waves” over a 24 hour period and a blood test cannot show the averages of those waves or highs and lows.

    A more accurate test is an examination of saliva – this will provide a look at hormone levels over the past few hours. It still runs the risk of catching a “peak” or “trough” of a hormone level and thus providing an erroneous result. Dr. Myatt finds this to be a useful test when performed and interpreted correctly and offers it as an economical alternative to more expensive (and more accurate) 24 hour urine testing – find more information here.

    The “Gold Standard” of hormone testing is considered to be the 24 hour urine collection. While it may be a bit time-consuming and awkward for someone who is busy and “on-the-go” it will provide the most accurate possible look at overall hormone health as it will show your body’s hormone production over a full 24 hour period.

    Dr. Myatt finds that the 24 hour  COMPREHENSIVE PLUS HORMONE PROFILE is the most accurate and useful of the hormone tests when performed and interpreted correctly. Interpretation of the results of this test, which includes and examination not only of the major sex hormones but of their intermediates and metabolites as well, is time consuming and complicated – this may be one reason most conventional doctors are reluctant to perform it. Dr. Myatt spends a great deal of time analysing the results of this test for her patients and she offers Physician Interpretation for a modest fee to non-patients who order this test.

    Other tests may include measuring levels of insulin, glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides. Vitamin D levels, and Iodine levels.

    Iodine Testing is especially important to PCOS since so many Americans are Iodine deficient and Iodine Deficiency is a major contributor to cystic conditions of all sorts – especially the breasts, ovaries, and thyroid.  Learn more about Iodine testing here – Dr. Myatt offers two accurate Iodine tests.

  • Breast Cancer Prevention: Dr. Myatt’s Recommendations

    Breast Cancer Prevention

     

    Dr. Myatt’s Recommendations

     

    Mammograms are NOT Prevention

     

    Mammograms are not prevention; they are “early detection.”

     

    In addition to the 30-50% of women who have unnecessary biopsies for “false negative results,” several large metanalysies have shown NO DECREASE IN BREAST CANCER MORTALITY due to mammograms.(1)

    Even if mammography was effective in lowering breast cancer rates, the 5-year overall survival rates for women with stage II breast cancer is 83.6%. This means that 16.4% of women diagnosed with stage II breast cancer will not live for 5 years. (2)

    And guess what? A new study just out this “pink ribbon” month of Oct. has shown that previous use of conventional hormone replacement therapy is not only associated with a significant increase in breast cancer risk, but the type of breast cancer is the more advanced, more difficult to treat kind, already metastasized to lymph nodes. (3)

    More Problems with “Early Diagnosis”

    An unbelievable 59% of women who die from breast cancer don’t actually die from the cancer, they die as a result of complications of surgery, typically within the first 30 days. These deaths are not currently counted in the “cancer-related deaths” statistics.(4)

    If you read my “Why the Little Pink Ribbon Has Me Seeing Red” article, you already know that conventional diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer have lowered the mortality rate by a whopping 1.7% in the last decade or so, and all of this benefit appears due to women flocking away from conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in 2002-2003, not from mammograms or new treatments.

    Instead of the “big deal” of 1.7%, let’s talk about some truly meaningful numbers — ways to reduce breast cancer risk by upwards of 50% or more, all natural.

    True Prevention

    1.) Maintain a normal weight. If you won’t do that, at least consider losing some of your extra fat. Fat cells manufacture estrogen, and excess estrogen is a “smoking gun” for breast cancer. How much can you lower your risk? A Whopping 57% decreased risk for 22 pounds lost, even if you have much more than 22 extra pounds of fat. Learn more about the huge prevention benefits of weight loss, including the numbers, in my “Little Pink Ribbon” article.

    2.) Exercise: even a little bit, which has many other health benefits besides, can dramatically lower your breast cancer risk. A total of 5 hours per week of moderate exercise, like walking, can lower breast cancer risk by an unbelievable 47%.

    3.) Correct hormone imbalances, especially high estrogen, and avoid use of conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and birth control pills. (5,6) Get the full story here in my “Little Pink Ribbon” article:

    4.) Nutritional supplements:

    I.) Vit D: Women with vitamin D levels above 52 ng/ml have as much as a 50% reduction of breast cancer rates.(7)

    Vitamin D testing is simple and inexpensive. So are vitamin D supplements.

    II.) Essential Fatty Acids (EFA’s – a.k.a. fish oil): One study found a 32% lower incidence of breast cancer in women taking fish oil supplements. (8,9) Because fish oil (specifically, EPA and DHA) are also beneficial to the heart, brain and bones, supplementation for every reason is recommended. Recommended dose: Maxi Marine O-3: 2 caps per day. “Regular” fish oil (lower potency): 6 caps per day.

    III.) Lignans are a special type of fiber found in certain plants including flaxseed, pumpkin, sunflower and poppy seeds, whole grains (rye, oats, barley), fruits (especially berries) and vegetables. Flax seed is one of the highest sources of lignans.

    Lignans inhibits estrogen production, blocks estrogen receptors in a manner similar to tamoxifen, increases 2-OH estrone (considered a “good” kind of estrogen because it does not stimulate the growth of breast cancer), and lowers the risk of metastasis.(10,11)

    An easy way to get high lignans in the diet is to consume ground flax seeds (flax seed meal). Try Dr. Myatt’s Bread recipe or Dr. Myatt’s Blueberry muffins for a quick, delicious way to get a big dose of nutrients, including flax seed meal, into your diet.

    IV.) DIM’s: Diindolemethanes, the “magic” found in cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts and other cruciferous veggies, helps the body process and clear excess estrogen. (12,13)

    It is difficult to get enough DIM’s from diet alone, both because you would need to eat a large amount of cruciferous vegetables AND because heat destroys the active ingredient. Also, high doses of crucifers can lower thyroid function. Obtaining DIM’s from supplements is an easy way to achieve meaningful levels of DIMs without lowering thyroid function or turning into a Brussels sprout.

    V.) Turmeric. Research has shown that turmeric inhibits breast cancer cell growth, prevents tumors from invading surrounding tissue, causes cancer cell death and increases effectiveness of chemotherapy while protecting against negative side effects. (14-17)

    Other natural substances which show promise in breast cancer prevention: green tea, medicinal mushrooms, calcium glucarate.

    Summary: Maintenance of a healthy weight, moderate exercise and a good diet supplemented with a few simple nutrients is far more powerful at preventing breast cancer than 100 mammograms and billions of dollars spent on cancer research.

    References:

    1.) Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001877. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub2.

    2.) National Cancer Institute; http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html#incidence-mortality (see “Stage and Survival).

    3.) Chlebowski, R. TheJournal of the American Medical Association, Oct. 20, 2010; vol 304: pp 1684-1692.News release, American Medical Association.Bach, P. The Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct. 20, 2010; vol 304: pp 1719-1720.

    4.) H. Gilbert Welch and William C. Black. Are Deaths Within 1 Month of Cancer-Directed Surgery Attributed to Cancer? JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2002) 94 (14): 1066-1070. doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.14.1066.

    5.) Farmer, P. “Xenobiotics and Cancer. Implications for Chemical Carcinogenesis and Cancer Chemotherapy.” Br J Cancer. 1992 December; 66(6): 1208.

    6.) Gottleib, S. “FDA insists oestrogen products for menopause carry a warning.” BMJ. 2003 January 18; 326(7381): 126.

    7.) Garland, C.F., et al. 2007. Vitamin D and prevention of breast cancer: pooled analysis., J Steroid Biochem Mol BiolMar;103(3-5):708-11.

    8.) Brasky TM, Lampe JW, Potter JD, Patterson RE, White E. Specialty supplements and breast cancer risk in the VITamins And Lifestyle (VITAL) Cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Jul;19(7):1696-708.

    9.) Kim J, Lim SY, Shin A, Sung MK, Ro J, Kang HS, Lee KS, Kim SW, Lee ES. Fatty fish and fish omega-3 fatty acid intakes decrease the breast cancer risk: a case-control study. BMC Cancer 2009 Jun 30;9(1):216.

    10.) Marina S. Touillaud, Anne C. M. Thiébaut, Agnès Fournier, Maryvonne Niravong, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault and Françoise Clavel-Chapelon. Dietary Lignan Intake and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Risk by Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Status. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2007) 99 (6): 475-486.

    11.) American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) 2008 Annual Meeting: Abstract 4162. Presented April 15, 2008.

    12.) Wong, G,. et al., “Dose-ranging study of I-3-C for breast cancer prevention,” J. Cell Biochem 1997; 29-29:111-116.

    13.) Fishman J., Schneider J., Hershcope RJ., Bradlow HL. Increased estrogen 16-alpha-hydroxylase activity in women with breast and endometrial cancer. J Steroid Biochem. 1984; 20(4B): 1077-1081.

    14.) 14. Holy JM. Curcumin disrupts mitotic spindle structure and induces micronucleation in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Mutat Res. 2002 Jun 27;518(1):71-84.

    15.) Shao ZM, Shen ZZ, Liu CH, et al. Curcumin exerts multiple suppressive effects on human breast carcinoma cells. Int J Cancer. 2002;98:234-40.

    16.) Choudhuri T, Pal S, Agwarwal ML, Das T, Sa G. Curcumin induces apoptosis in human breast cancer cells through p53- dependent Bax induction. FEBS Lett. 2002;512:334-40.

    17.) Ramsewak RS, DeWitt DL, Nair MG. Cytotoxicity, antioxidant and antiinflammatory activities of curcumins I-III from Curcuma long Phytomedicine. 2000;7:303-8.

  • Smoking For ‘The Little Pink Ribbon’

    In keeping with this month’s theme of breast cancer prevention, we offer this view of “The Little Pink Ribbon” campaigns by Mike Adams of www.NaturalNews.com – Mike has some insightful thoughts to share on this subject.

    Click on the cartoon to read more on the subject by Mike.