HealthBeat News

Category: Cancer

  • Vitamin D and Liver Cancer: More Reasons Love Vitamin D

    By Nurse Mark

     

    In our modern world filled with wondrous, even miraculous offerings of synthetic drugs so benevolently given to us by Big Pharma it is comforting to know that Mother Nature is still on our side looking out for us and giving us simple things that actually do work. They do work that is, if we can just avert our eyes from the seductive glitter of patent drugs for long enough to actually get back to basics and try the natural solutions…

    Such is the case with vitamin D.

    Long dismissed by conventional medicine and Big Pharma as being only needed in miniscule amounts to prevent the ancient disease rickets and derisively called “the sunshine vitamin” so as to suggest that we get all we need from minimal exposure to daylight, vitamin D has recently forced it’s way into the spotlight as being not just valuable to our health, but essential to us in preventing some of our most feared diseases.

    We have been singing the praises of vitamin D here at The Wellness Club for many years. Over 4 years ago we offered our readers Dr. Myatt’s Special Report On Vitamin D. Now it appears that conventional medical researchers are finally catching up with us.

    Emory University has recently announced the results of research showing that vitamin D intake can lower the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). For those who didn’t know, HCC is the main form of liver cancer.

    According to the article:

    Findings indicated that higher levels of vitamin D in the body cut the risk of HCC in half

     

    Let’s repeat that: higher levels of vitamin D cut the risk of liver cancer in half.

    If it were a new patent medicine that this was being said about we would be hearing all about it. The FDA and Big Pharma would be trying to convince us to add it to the drinking water. Politicians would be demanding mandatory consumption of it “for the children.”

    But it’s not a patent medicine – it’s lowly, simple, natural vitamin D and until Big Pharma can figure out how to patent it and sell it for a profit they will continue to regard it with contempt.

    We will continue to give vitamin D the respect it deserves here at The Wellness Club, and we invite you to learn more:

    Dr. Myatt’s Special Report On Vitamin D

    Vitamin D Deficiency is common – find out if you are deficient with a simple lab test: Our vitamin D, 25-OH, Total (Blood Spot) – uses a FINGER STICK blood spot test that you collect at home

    Vitamin D supplements are inexpensive and available in both capsules and liquid drops. 

    And please read our other articles on vitamin D in HealthBeat News.

  • Proof: Sugar Feeds Cancer!

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Dr. Myatt has long warned of the cancer-promoting effects of sugar – specifically, high blood sugar and the carbohydrate-rich Standard American Diet (SAD) that causes high blood sugars.

    It has been a frustrating, often lonely crusade for health, often leaving her feeling like a voice crying in the wilderness.

    At every turn she has found herself not only attacked by conventional medical and dietetic “wisdom” which preaches starch and grains-heavy dietary advice, she finds herself up against the constant propaganda of the wheat, corn, sugar, and other industries and even the very addictive nature of sugar itself.

    There is however a growing chorus of voices joining hers in their warnings against the dangers of our modern, sugary, carbohydrate-rich, sweet-laden diet. A growing number of scientists and doctors are, however cautiously, beginning to question the wisdom of the change from our ancestral diet rich in proteins and fats to our “modern” diet so heavily based on breads and grains and starches and sugar.

    It has been considered to be sacrilegious – even un-American – to question the wisdom of the “quick energy” high carbohydrate diet – but now there are scientists who are daring to do just that.

    Researchers at the School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Washington University School of Medicine recently published the results of their work which clearly show the dangers of a sugary diet.

    Here is the summary of their paper:

    The risk of specific cancers increases in patients with metabolic dysfunction, including obesity and diabetes. Here, we use Drosophila [fruit flies] as a model to explore the effects of diet on tumor progression. Feeding Drosophila a diet high in carbohydrates was previously demonstrated to direct metabolic dysfunction, including hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, and insulin resistance. We demonstrate that high dietary sugar also converts Ras/Src-transformed [cancerous] tissue from localized growths to aggressive tumors with emergent metastases. Whereas most tissues displayed insulin resistance, Ras/Src tumors retained insulin pathway sensitivity, increased the ability to import glucose, and resisted apoptosis. High dietary sugar increased canonical Wingless/Wnt pathway activity, which upregulated insulin receptor gene expression to promote insulin sensitivity. The result is a feed-forward circuit that amplified diet-mediated malignant phenotypes within Ras/Src-transformed tumors. By targeting multiple steps in this circuit with rationally applied drug combinations, we demonstrate the potential of combinatorial drug intervention to treat diet-enhanced malignant tumors.

    Here’s what all that means in simpler, non-scientist language:

    • People with diabetes, or who are obese, or have metabolic syndrome (high blood sugars) are well-known to be at greatly increased risk for developing cancer.
    • Scientists used fruit flies to see the effect of high-sugar diets on cancer.
    • Feeding the fruit flies a high sugar diet quickly gave them diabetes.
    • That high sugar diet also caused small cancerous growths to quickly become very large, aggressive and metastatic (spreading) tumors that voraciously consume the sugar and resist normal cell death (or apoptosis).
    • The high-sugar diet and resulting aggressive cancer growth increases, spiraling out of control: “the bigger it gets the bigger it will get” – as long as the high sugar “fuel” is available.
    • Finally, the scientists appeal to the drug companies for research money by saying that there might be ways to fix all this with drugs…

     

    Using fruit flies specially designed to have cancerous tumors, the scientists, led by Ross Cagan from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City found that when the flies were fed a low sugar/carbohydrate, high protein diet the tumors remained small and did not spread. But, changing the diet to one that provided the same amount of calories from sugar instead of from protein caused the tumors to grow and spread rapidly.

    “The tumors just went crazy,” Cagan said. “When the flies were on a normal diet the tumors could barely be seen, but as soon as the sugar was introduced they were everywhere.”

     

    Please remember: All carbohydrates – grains, starches, fruits, vegetables, tubers, legumes – whether they are “complex carbs” or “simple carbs”, “high glycemic” or “low glycemic”, ultimately become glucose – that’s sugar – in our body when we eat them. And, there is no requirement for carbohydrates in our diet!

    So, to recap: Sugar causes diabetes. Sugar also causes cancer to grow and spread out of control. Researchers would like to find a drug that would stop sugar from causing diabetes and making cancer grow out of control.

    In the meantime, until that wonderful “silver bullet” is developed by Big Pharma, maybe Dr. Myatt is right – maybe a low-carbohydrate, low sugar diet really is the best protection!

    Doesn’t it seem a whole lot easier, safer, and more certain to simply cut out the sugar than to trust a drug? It sure does to me!

    Dr. Myatt is right now putting the finishing touches on her next book, The Ketone Zone For Cancer which will describe her years of clinical experience in using diet to control cancer and will provide advice, recipes, and more to those who wish to use the power of their own metabolism to combat this frightening disease. Watch for it – we’ll be announcing it soon!

     

    References:

    Endocrinology: Sugar Activates Oncogenes in Tumors. Published: Aug 12, 2013 | Updated: Aug 21, 2013
    By Salynn Boyles, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Obesity/40920

    Transformed Drosophila Cells Evade Diet-Mediated Insulin Resistance through Wingless Signaling
    Susumu Hirabayashi, Thomas J. Baranski, Ross L. Cagan. Cell, Volume 154, Issue 3, 664-675, 1 August 2013 http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674%2813%2900769-1

    National Academy of Sciences: Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) ( 2005 ) Chpt. 6 Dietary Carbohydrates: Sugars and Starches Page 275: “The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.” http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=275

  • 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

  • Is Common Fish Oil A New Cancer Cure?

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Vital To Health

     

    Omega 3 fatty acids such as are found in fish oil are essential to health. In fact, they are essential to life itself – without adequate amounts of essential fatty acids, including the Omega 3 fatty acids EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) in our diet we will soon sicken and even die.

    We know that deficiencies of Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acids contribute to subtle body-wide inflammation which in turn is associated with over 60 known diseases including:

    overweight and obesity

    autoimmune disease

    neurological disease

    heart disease

    allergies

    psoriasis and eczema

    cancer

    asthma

    high blood pressure

    arthritis

    depression

    stroke

     

    Now a Cancer Treatment Too?

     

    We have long know how valuable EPA and DHA are to health – but new research is showing that these essential fatty acids can be potent cancer-fighting compounds as well.

    Researchers at the University of London, England have published a paper detailing their success in using Omega 3 fatty acids to induce cell death in malignant and pre-malignant cells called keratonicytes (skin cells). They also found that the doses of Omega 3 fatty acids needed to kill the cancerous and pre-malignant cells was not harmful to normal, healthy cells.

    In a news release by the University of London, lead researcher Dr Nikolakopoulou said: “As the doses needed to kill the cancer cells do not affect normal cells, especially with one particular fatty acid we used called Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), there is potential for using omega-3 fatty acids in the prevention and treatment of skin and oral cancers.”

    Untreated Cancer Keratonicytes Omega-3 Treated Cancer Keratinocytes

    This shows untreated cancer keratonicytes.

    Image Credit: Queen Mary, University of London

    This shows omega-3 treated cancer keratinocytes.

    Image Credit: Queen Mary, University of London
     

    Why Is This Important?

     

    Keratinocytes are simply the fancy name for skin cells – another name for these cells in squamous cells. Most people have heard of a cancer called Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) – or “skin cancer.” Squamous cells form the outermost layers of the skin, and SCC is one of the main forms of skin cancer.

    Squamous cells are also part of the lining of the digestive tract (including the lips and mouth), the lungs, and other areas of the body. Mouth cancer, or Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC) is the sixth most common cancer worldwide.

     

    Big Pharma Takes Note…

     

    Of course, no researcher survives long without ensuring that their work attracts the attention of the pharmaceutical companies, and Big Pharma doesn’t give out research grants for things unlikely to become patentable and profitable.

    Omega 3 fatty acids are not patentable – they come from fish. So why would a researcher put any effort into Omega 3 fatty acids? In that same news release we find a clue:

    “It may be that those at an increased risk of such cancers – or their recurrence – could benefit from increased omega-3 fatty acids. Moreover, as the skin and oral cancers are often easily accessible, there is the potential to deliver targeted doses locally via aerosols or gels. However further research is needed to define the appropriate therapeutic doses.”

     

    Translation?

     

    “People should take more Omega 3 fatty acids to prevent and treat cancers. Meanwhile we’ll work on figuring out some new, patentable delivery system that will make us a big profit. Oh, and I’ll need another research grant so that I can figure out what doses will be needed.”

     

    The Take-Home Message

     

    Dr. Myatt has long advocated Fish Oil supplements as one of the pillars of a daily supplementation regimen for optimal health. This new research just adds additional weight to the importance of Omega 3 essential fatty acids in our health.

    Dr. Myatt’s top recommendation for purity and potency in Omega 3 fatty acids is Maxi Marine O-3 fish oil.

     

    Learn more about the important nutritional benefits of Omega 3 Essential Fatty Acids here.

     

    References

     

    Zacharoula Nikolakopoulou, Georgios Nteliopoulos, Adina Teodora Michael-Titus and Eric Kenneth Parkinson. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids selectively inhibit growth in neoplastic oral keratinocytes by differentially activating ERK1/2, Oxford Journals, Carcinogenesis,Advance Access, 10.1093/carcin/bgt257
    http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/24/carcin.bgt257.abstract

    Fatty acids could aid cancer prevention and treatment – Public release date: 1-Aug-2013, Queen Mary, University of London. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-08/qmuo-fa080113.php

  • Stop Calling It Cancer!

    The Mighty National Cancer Institute Is Looking To Make Some Changes…

     

    By Nurse Mark

     

    The medical news has been full of it recently:

     

    Articles such as these cross our desk on a daily basis, making us wonder whether the conventional medical world has finally discovered that not every lump or bump has to be cancer and aggressively fought, or could it be that higher powers – the insurance industry, the government – have realized that they are in danger of foundering under the expense of all this diagnosis and treatment.

    The Fear Factor

    There’s no doubt that cancer is a terrifying word. It conjures up visions of debilitating illness, disfiguring surgery, toxic chemotherapy treatments, agonizing side effects from radiation therapy, and ultimately a painful and undignified death after which the grieving family will be left financially ruined.

    So it’s good that the NCI has recognized that not every lump and bump, and not every “unusual” spot or shadow on a high-tech scan or mammography must be called “cancer.” Many of these things are just innocent lumps and bumps and spots. And many of them, if left alone (as they would be if we didn’t know they were there) would either quietly go away on their own, or remain unchanged for years, or maybe even grow and become annoying enough that we might then choose to do something about them.

    With this in mind, the NCI has proposed that doctors be a little more cautious about how they describe these things to their patients.

    The Evidence

    From a paper titled “Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer – An Opportunity for Improvement“

    The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute.

    Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called “cancer.”

    Instead, the conditions should be labeled something more appropriate, such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE), the working group suggests. The Viewpoint report was published online July 29 in JAMA.

    “Use of the term ‘cancer’ should be reserved for describing lesions with a reasonable likelihood of lethal progression if left untreated,”

     

    A Name Change

    So, what were once give the frightening diagnosis of “cancer” are now to be called “indolent lesions.”

    Indolent is from the Latin (a language your doctor might know a few words of…) In – meaning not, and Dolens – meaning pain. Indolent in this case means painless. Other definitions include “lazy,” and “slow-growing.” Lesion is defined as a localized change in a bodily organ or tissue from a wound or injury or other pathological process. A cut is a form of lesion, as is the scar that forms when it heals. A pimple is a lesion, as is a skin cancer. In other words, any lump or bump or sore can be described as a “lesion.”

    Does this mean that we should now just ignore lumps and bumps and sore spots? Of course not!

    What it does mean is that our doctors will hopefully now take a little more care with how they discuss these things with their patients.

    Breast Cancer? Or Just a lump?

    Instead of finding that little lump in a breast and striking terror into the heart of a woman with the diagnosis of “Ductal Carcinoma (cancer) In Situ” perhaps the more enlightened doctor will now say something like “Hmmm… a little lump there – perhaps an indolent lesion – let’s leave it alone and see how it is when you come back next year!”

    Scandinavian countries have been taking this approach for years and have found that most of these lumps just go away on their own and never cause a problem. Those that don’t are then easily identified and treated, and thousands of women are spared unnecessary fear, diagnostic workups, and toxic treatment, disfiguring surgery and debilitating radiation therapies.

    Men too…

    Men can likewise be spared from the ravages of medical overtreatment that comes with a diagnosis of “prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia” (neoplasm is another word to describe “cancer”). It is well-known that most men, by the time they reach their seventies, could be found to have small cancers – if one looks hard enough. Autopsy after autopsy performed on men who have died from something else (including “old age”) reveal cancers that no-one – not the man nor his doctor – ever knew about or even suspected.

    Sure, We’re Finding More…

    The statistics make it very clear that over the past 3 decades or so with the explosion of scans, and diagnostics and our “war on cancer” the discovery rate for all these so-called “cancers” has increased greatly – but the death rate from them has remained fairly constant – despite all the treatments being inflicted upon those unfortunate enough to be so diagnosed.

    Maybe finding and aggressively “treating” all those little lumps and bumps – now to be called “indolent lesions” – really hasn’t been doing much more than tormenting the poor, terrified patients and sucking the financial life out of the medical system.

    Maybe the National Cancer Institute is right – maybe it’s time for a change.

     

    Source article:

    Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer: An Opportunity for Improvement
    JAMA. 2013;310(8):797-798. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1722196