HealthBeat News

Category: Cancer

  • 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

  • Liver Cancer: Is There A One-Pill Treatment?

    By Nurse Mark

     

    “All this in one tiny, easy-to-swallow softgel caplet…”

     

    Big Pharma sure has done a good job of marketing. Their sales researchers discovered long ago that most people, even in the face of life-threatening illness, are really quite unwilling to do anything more than absolutely necessary to get well – and that if someone else can do it for them, with a “shot” or I.V. therapy, or surgery where they really don’t have to do any more than show up and say “fix me doc!” they are even happier.

    Gastric surgery or liposuction for weight loss (instead of a healthier diet) is a perfect example, as is the use of “acid blockers” to stop the heartburn caused by poor digestion, or the use of dangerous drugs to control diabetes symptoms instead of simply correcting the problem – it is so much easier to just “take a pill” or “see the doc and get it cut on” than it is to actually address the cause of the problem.

    That’s why Big Pharma works so hard to offer their wares in “one tiny, easy-to-swallow softgel caplet”, and “convenient, once-daily dosing.” Never mind that their stuff often doesn’t work – at least it’s convenient… and probably covered by insurance.

    Here’s a letter that we see from time to time – more often than we would like, really – from a fellow who not only wants his health to be easy and convenient, but who also sounds like he has given up hope of any improvement and is willing to settle for just a bit more energy. How sad!

    Charles wrote:

    I have been found to have HCC (cancer) tumor as a result of long term HCV and cirrhosis. 
    I want to purchase a vitamin supplement that is simple and easy to take and aids in liver cancer support.
    I looked at all of the stuff to take for cancer and I can’t take that many pills a day. 
    Instead of Multi Vitamins and a boatload of other supplements, I’m very interested in the vitamin pack (take one daily with food).
    I’m not looking for a cure but some vitamin support to help me with deficiencies and give me a little more energy.
    Would the multi-packs be okay for me?
    Thanks,
    Charles

     

    Here’s my answer to Charles:

    Hi Charles,

    You’re messing with me, right? Kidding me to see what kind of a sense of humor I have?

    I don’t know the stage of your liver cancer, but liver cancer at any stage is very serious business and the survival rate under conventional treatment is not good at all.

    I wish I could tell you that there is one vitamin or herb that will help, and that better yet it involves only one tiny easy-to-swallow capsule a day – but I can’t.

    Even your conventional oncologist and hepatologist cannot tell you that about their chemotherapies – and they really don’t work very well anyway.

    On the other hand, your conventional oncologist will probably be able to offer you chemotherapy in the form of intravenous infusions, or maybe radiation therapy, or maybe even surgery – and those might seem more convenient to you than a hand-full of vitamins and other dietary supplements a few times a day…

    And, you are telling me that you are “not looking for a cure”?

    I won’t judge you; perhaps you have decided that the time has come for your life to end and that you don’t want to interfere with that process, but please know that death as a result of liver cancer is not a comfortable, convenient, or pretty thing. If it were me in your shoes I would be battling it with every cell of my being.

    You can be sure that if I was in your position I would not allow the minor inconvenience of having to take more than just a few pills more than once a day to keep me from fighting such a disease in every way I could.

    Having said that, you should also know that Dr. Myatt and our team at The Wellness Club are not strangers to dealing with both Hep C and with liver cancer.

    One of our current patients came to us a couple of years ago complaining of fatigue and abdominal pain – her own doctor (from Yale no less!) thought maybe she was constipated or had some bowel problem.

    Dr. Myatt told her what tests to ask for and she was diagnosed with stage 4 liver cancer. As you know, the survival statistics for stage 4 liver cancer are dismal – with very few patients living beyond 6 months to a year and most usually being very sick for a lot of that time.

    Our patient, who is in her 70’s, is now over 2 years out from her diagnosis, with almost no evidence of disease and reporting an energy level of 10 on a scale of 10. Yes, she takes more than a few vitamins and herbs and other supplements several times each day, but I doubt you could persuade her to stop. You see, she is enjoying life just too much! She travels (to Europe!), she volunteers, she dances, she attends school, she has a very busy and fulfilling life – and her multiple numbers of “pills” each day don’t seem to get in the way of all that.

    Another patient, a man in his 40’s, came to us when his doctors told him “there’s nothing more we can do for you” – after making him into a cardiac cripple with their hepatitis C treatments.

    Dr. Myatt told him to mark that date on his calendar since it was a red-letter day for him, and he did. He can still tell you, years afterward, exactly when he started working with Dr. Myatt.

    He went from not being able to walk the length of his driveway to his mailbox to being a healthy, robust, weight-lifting, jogging, basketball playing man who recently got married. Oh, and yes, he had to take a whole bunch of pills, several times a day for a while, and still takes what you might call a “boat-load” since it is more than a few and more than just once a day.

    So, yes – to answer your question, taking a “vitamin pack” such as My Pack Once Daily is going to be ‘way better than taking some “fairy dust dose” one-a-day vitamin tablet, and certainly better than nothing at all. But please bear in mind that My Packs are designed for otherwise healthy people who want convenience for traveling – not for people with life-threatening illnesses who need serious nutritional deficiency correction. And they are not targeted nutrients for liver disease.

    In your case, a minimum protocol would be: Maxi Multi Optimal Dose Multiple Vitamin, Maxi Marine O3 fish oil, and Milk Thistle. If you wanted to do something extra for energy in addition to the healing supplements I listed you could add some vitamin B-12 – B12 Extreme is a little tablet that dissolves under the tongue – so it wouldn’t add too much to your daily “burden” of pills…

    You can learn more about these on our website:

    Maxi Multi

    Maxi Marine O3

    Milk Thistle

    B12 Extreme

    If you are truly serious about dealing with your illness then you will book a brief consultation with Dr. Myatt – and sooner, not later.

    The liver is a very forgiving organ if it is treated right. Given a half a chance it can heal and regenerate. Liver cancer need not be a “death sentence.”

    Hope this helps,
    Nurse Mark

  • The Rooster Crows To Make The Sun Rise

    The Problem With Research Article Abstracts – Or, How The Rooster Crows To Make The Sun Rise…

     

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Our patients tend to be a well-informed and intelligent group – naturally, they chose Dr. Myatt for their physician! This is a good thing most of the time – but sometimes our patients cause themselves needless worry and alarm when they get out into the great, big, wild, wooly, and unchecked World Wide Web. Newsgroups, support groups, “infomercial” websites, self-appointed “experts” – all clamoring for attention. It can be a confusing, even misleading place out there, much like a carnival midway sometimes: “Hurry, Hurry, Hurry! Step Right Up And Get Your Cure! Today Only Folks – Just For You…”

    This question was sent to us by one of our patients, a noted Scientist and a quite brilliant fellow who more than six years ago was told by his conventional doctor to tidy up his affairs as he had weeks, perhaps months at best to live. We are thrilled that he is not only still “with us” but that he is fit and healthy and confounding his conventional doctor.

    He is also, like many prostate cancer patients, keenly interested in his condition and deeply determined to learn as much as possible about it. And therein lies the problem.

    Read on…

    Dear Dr Myatt,

    I hope you have had a very pleasant weekend.

    As you know, I have been making a Supershake every morning for breakfast and one of its ingredients is Flaxseed Oil.

    I also receive many emails from well informed sources, who are members of a special interest group focused on PCa. (Prostate Cancer) This surfaced the paper below and the associated comment.

    You will appreciate that this gives me some concern about the flaxseed oil, which is stated to comprise mainly the alpha-linolenic acid.

    Can you provide some published material to rebutt the proposition that this is “bad for PCa”?

    Many thanks

    This patient goes on to provide us with this link to a Journal article:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/utils/fref.fcgi?PrId=3058&itool=AbstractPlus-def&uid=17450530&db=pubmed&url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22788
    from the International Journal of Cancer and quotes the information that was sent to him, highlighting in red selected portions of the text: [edited for brevity – see full abstract at URL above]

    Risk factors for prostate cancer incidence and progression in the health professionals follow-up study.
    […] for fatal prostate cancer, recent smoking history, taller height, higher BMI, family history, and high intakes of total energy, calcium and alpha-linolenic acid were associated with a statistically significant increased risk. […] Tomato sauce (inversely) and alpha-linolenic acid (positively) intakes were strong predictors of advanced cancer among those with low-grade cancers at diagnosis[…]

    An associated comment (presumably of the person from the support group who found and forwarded this information)

    “It’s the alpha linolenic acid that is the ALA that is not good for prostate cancer. Alpha lipoic is OK.“

    Interestingly, this abstract does contain a gem of information that appears to have been under-appreciated:

    […] The complexity of the clinical and pathologic manifestations of prostate cancer must be considered in the design and interpretation of studies.

    Wow – How Very True!

    Dr. Myatt responded to this fellow with the story below:

    Once upon a time, a man decided to do research to find out what makes the sun rise in the morning.

    Every day, a half hour before sunrise, he dutifully awakened and sat outside in a lawn chair, recording his observations.

    Every day for that entire year, whether it was cloudy or clear, he heard a rooster crow in the distance. Sometimes ten minutes before the sun came up, and other times five minutes before the sun came up, but the rooster always crowed.

    After a year of observation, the man was confident that he had solved the mystery of sunrise. He published a scientific paper titled “Sound Correlates to Sunrise: What Makes the Sun Come Up?” The abstract (a pseudo-scientific term for “article summary”) said something about “cock’s crowing unequivocally associated with first light of dawn.”

    The article title and abstract were quoted in numerous internet forums. The media picked up on the article, and headlines read “Rooster’s Crowing Responsible for Sunrise.” Because the article had been published in a scientific journal — The Journal of Improbable Results —- everyone knew that the information must be trustworthy.

    People started to panic. What if something happened to the Rooster? Would the sun stop rising every morning? Was it a special rooster, or perhaps a particular breed of rooster, that caused sunrise? Should the rooster be a protected species? Would we experience another ice age if anything happened to the rooster? Or worse, would life as we know it cease to exist without the rooster bringing the sun up each day?

    The stock market fluctuated drastically as a result of this report. New companies were formed to develop alternate technologies in case the sun failed to rise. Cryonic research was started to preserve the rooster should anything happen to him. And many people lived in fear of the worst, which seemed reasonable in view of these new findings.

    Of course, very few people actually read the research paper itself. Why bother when the abstract clearly stated that “cock’s crowing unequivocally associated with first light of dawn”?  Besides, scientific journal articles are usually only accessible through a paid subscription to the journal, or at least a pay-per-view of the article.

    Several people did actually read the full article, but they had no background in improbable results research and so didn’t understand what they were reading.

    One specialist read the article and began to laugh uncontrollably, for it was clear to her that the entire panic was unwarranted. First, the study was “observational,” not interventional. Just because the rooster crows before sunup doesn’t “prove” that the crowing causes sunup. And she found that no studies had been done (or even planned), to silence the rooster and see if the sun would come up without his help.

    Although she tried to explain to her worried constituents that the reports of the study were far over-blown and not necessarily accurate, the mass hysteria created by headlines and “abstracts” was too great, and most people chose to remain in a state of panic and confusion rather than systematically evaluate the evidence.

    And so it is with the headline and abstract you forwarded to me she continued…

    First, do you suppose that the person who posted this abstract read the article? Seeing as how the abstract is “ahead of print” and the article is a “pay-per-view,” I’m betting NOT. Further, unless one knows how to read and interpret medical science (not just any science), they still might not know what they were looking at.

    Do you suppose the person posting this article even knows what study the “conclusion” is drawn from, or if it is a viable conclusion? Again, I’d bet money that this is not the case.

    The study from which this sweeping statement is drawn is called the “Health Professionals Follow-Up Study,” a project that has been going on since 1986. Over 50,000 male medical professionals (doctors, dentists, veterinarians) have been receiving surveys for the past 20+ years, and that’s the study. Like the “rooster and sunrise study,” it is an observational study only. Individuals and groups seeking grants related to this study must continue to “make something” of the results in order to continue receiving funding. There’s always a “rooster article” to be found in any set of data!

    Now, here’s the “inside scoop” (the one few bother to look into before they post an abstract on a forum, or read an abstract and get their knickers in a knot about a single sentence of illogically-drawn “conclusion”…)

    So what is the True story about ALA’s and Prostate Cancer?

    ALA’s and flax seed oil are being declared guilty by being at the crime scene, rather than actually being the criminal. (Sort of like saying that white blood cells cause infection because you almost always find them at sites of infection; or saying that flies cause garbage because…)

    To fully understand this, let’s use both common sense AND biochemistry (both of which I find often lacking when someone posts an “abstract” with one sentence highlighted on a forum….)

    First, the Common Sense (Oh, NO! NOT common sense! Don’t make me go there!)

    For all but the most recent of human existence, we have eaten foods with an omega-6 fatty acid (linoleic acid and arachidonic acid) to omega-3 fatty acid (DHA, EPA, and alpha-linolenic acid) of about 1:1 to 2:1. Over the last 50 years, however, that ratio has changed to 20:1 or even 30:1 and in some cases as high as 50:1.

    Modern diets now include HUGE amounts of highly refined Omega-6 oils extracted from plants (corn oil, safflower oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil, and soybean oil) and used for cooking. These oils are all high in the omega-6s fatty acids but also contain some amount of O-3 fatty acids. At the same time, we have dramatically decreased our intake of omega-3 fatty acids (found primarily in whole grains, beans, seeds, and seafood). The Omega-3’s we DO eat are typically “secondary” to the omega-6’s in food, and are cooked or highly refined.

    Biochemical side-note: Omega 3’s and Omega 6’s (polyunsaturated oils) are dramatically altered when heated. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SPECIES of oil once they are heated, and their health benefits literally evaporate with cooking. SO… talking about Essential Fatty Acids is really an incomplete discussion without addressing whether or not the oils are the “parent oils” (unheated) or whether they are damaged EFA’s. But I digress with science… back to common sense…

    In this same 50-year period that our intake of parent EFA’s (both O-6 and O-3, but especially O-3) has dramatically decreased, the rates of prostate cancer have soared. (The incidence of prostate cancer in Uruguay, one of the more frequently-referenced “ALA’s are associated with prostate cancer” studies, has increased nearly 80% in the past 50 years. It should be noted that the diet in Uruguay is largely comprised of meat (a major dietary source of ALA), dairy,  a lot of food fried in refined cooking oils such as canola (a major dietary source of ALA, and remember that heating ALA makes it an entirely different “beast”)  and virtually no flaxseed or unheated cold-processed flax oil.

    Common sense would tell us that we’ve been doing something wrong over the last 50, especially in regard to prostate cancer. Here are some things that have changed in our oil consumption:

    1.) We get most of our Omega-3 fatty acids from foods that are quite high in Omega-6 fatty acids, thereby altering the 1:1 or at most 2:1 ration of O-6 to O-3 that used to comprise a “natural diet. As a result, yes, we’re getting more O-3 (especially ALA) but a LOT MORE O-6. It is important to understand that all fat-containing foods have a variety of different types of fats, not just one type. For example, Canola oil is considered a high Omega-3 fat, but it actually contains omega 3s, 6s, and 9s. Meat contains both saturated fats and also unsaturated omega-6s and 3s.

    2.) Most of the Essential Fatty Acids (both O-6 and O-3) that are consumed today have been heated or chemically extracted. These polyunsaturated oils are quite fragile, and heating and refining them makes them a completely different “species” of oil. If we are not consuming “parent” (undamaged) EFA’s, then we are comparing apples to oranges.

    3.) Refining oils removes many of the associated nutrients (phytochemicals) and fiber. Remember that I originally advised you to use ground flax seed meal instead of flax oil, or second best, high lignan flax oil. Lignans are a special class of fiber with potent anti-cancer properties.

    4.) Vegetable oils (even ones that are uncooked) go rancid quickly. Again, a rancid EFA is an entirely different “species” than an undamaged “parent” EFA.

    Ah, but listen to the untutored who take every sentence from a “scientific study” (to use the term loosely) and you’d think that eating raw, natural O-3 ALA’s in the form of flaxseed was single-handedly responsible for the rise in prostate cancer. What a serious perversion of the truth!

    Next, Let’s Look at the Medical Science

    In spite of a few spurious “rooster and sunrise” studies to the contrary, the vast majority of scientific studies show a positive outcome using flaxseed and Omega-3 parent oils in cancer patients.

    A Duke University Medical Center study found that flaxseed and a low-fat diet helped men reduce the risk of prostate cancer (1, 2). The conclusions of the study were that even short-term changes to a high-fiber/flax supplemented diet resulted in prostate cancer cells that didn’t divide as quickly as those in people not on the diet. “I really didn’t think we’d have results like we did, because this was a diet and not drug intervention,” said Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, associate research professor in the department of surgery at Duke.

    A Kaiser Permanente study concluded that it was not total fat intake per se which relates to prostate and colon cancer but instead the type of fat, plus increasing exercise, that was associated with lower cancer risk. The “type of fats” recommended are from uncooked plant sources (which would be “parent” O-6’s and O-3’s). The American Cancer Society guidelines concur with these recommendations (3).

    A Korean study found that the ratios of serum O-3 to O-6 were highly correlated with prostate cancer. Men with prostate cancer also had significantly higher levels of O-6 acids than did men with BPH and those with normal prostates. The researchers concluded that omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids have a tumor-promoting effect while omega-3 acids have a protective effect. (4).

    And While We’re On The Subject of Biochemistry….

    The Fate of ALA in the body is that it is converted to DHA and EPA, two forms of fat which have a HIGH correlation with protection from cancer. Aye, but here’s the rub:

    O-6 and O-3 (and O-9, for that matter) all use the same delta-6-desaturase enzyme for their conversion. When O-6 levels are high, O-3 is not so readily converted to DHA and EPA. Since DHA and EPA are protective substances, high O-6 can interfere with conversion. (A probable mechanism whereby high O-6 levels increase cancer proliferation, by interfering with the body’s use of protective O-3).

    Trans fats, high insulin levels and damaged polyunsaturated oils all interfere with the desaturase enzyme.

    And Now the Particular Study That This “Rooster Crowing Causes Sunrise” Abstract Was Taken From…

    The “Health Professionals Follow-Up Study” has been ongoing since 1986. A group of 50,000+ male health professionals (doctors, dentists, veterinarians, etc.) have been sent questionnaires every two years since 1986. That makes this “study” an observational one (like getting up to watch the sun rise), not an intervention study. As we discussed, finding white blood cells at the site of an infection is not proof that WBC’s cause infection (we know they don’t, but instead are attempting to “clean up” infection). The rooster crowing before sunrise does not prove that His Nibs’ noise brings the sun up, either.

    There is NO PLACE in the Men’s Healthy Study questionnaire that asks about specific foods that contain largely ALA, or ALA supplements or flaxseed. You can view the actual questionnaire here: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hpfs/pdfs/04L.pdf

    If you want to see the food and supplement questions they have asked about over the years (the form is sent every two years), access it here:  http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hpfs/hpfs_qx_diet.html

    Higher levels of ALA as ascertained in this study are from meats (a specific question on the form), especially fried meats. This, of course, also increases intake of O-6. And remember, a cooked polyunsaturate bears no resemblance to a “parent” EFA, questions which aren’t touched on in this study.

    The Bottom Line (and Many Medical Scientists Concur)

    If you look at all of the evidence, both historical and scientific, (plus use some common sense) there is not one shred of “proof” that “parent” Omega-3 fatty acids as derived from flax seed and flax oil contribute to increased prostate cancer risk. In fact, just the opposite is true. The real risk is from highly processed vegetable oils (yes, containing ALA), that bear little resemblance to parent Omega-3 oils (native ALA’s).

    Not only do these heat and chemically-processed ALA’s bear no resemblance to parent ALA’s, they do not help to improve the highly imbalanced O-6:O-3 ratios characteristic of our “evolved” diets.

    But isn’t it better to be safe than sorry and avoid ALA’s? I don’t believe so. As I mentioned earlier, that would be like blaming white blood cells (WBC’s) for infections, and seeking to eliminate them instead of (or in addition to) the offending bacterium. Blaming the white blood cells and then trying to get rid of them — “Maybe it’s true and maybe it’s not, but just to be on the “safe side” we should get rid of the WBC’s at the site of an infection,” is NOT a benign mistake.

    The big problem with “warnings” about flax and flax oil is that they condemn a valuable component of cancer prevention and treatment based on faulty information and also let the real killers (highly refined O-3’s and O-6’s plus an imbalanced O-3:O-6 ratio) go Scott-free.

    If you’re concerned about flax oil, you can always rely solely on fish oil for your DHA and EPA’s. However, you’ll be missing out on the cancer-protective lignans (a type of fiber that is difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities outside of flax seed).

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

     

    References

    1.) Pilot study of dietary fat restriction and flaxseed supplementation in men with prostate cancer before surgery: exploring the effects on hormonal levels, prostate-specific antigen, and histopathologic features. Urology. 2001 Jul;58(1):47-52.
    2.) Pilot study to explore effects of low-fat, flaxseed-supplemented diet on proliferation of benign prostatic epithelium and prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 2004 May;63(5):900-4.
    3.) Dietary fat and cancer.Am J Med. 2002 Dec 30;113 Suppl 9B:63S-70S
    4.) Comparison of fatty acid profiles in the serum of patients with prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Clinical Biochemistry, Vol. 32, August 1999, pp. 405-09.

  • Cancer Treatment Causes Cancer? Yes!

    Big Pharma is found to be obeying the law again – The Law Of Unintended Consequences that is…

     

    By Nurse Mark

     

    It made headlines for just one day – then it disappeared.

     

    The story?

    An article recently published in the respected journal Nature Medicine had the press worldwide in a tizzy with headlines like this one from AFP (Agence France-Presse) that screamed “Chemotherapy can backfire and boost cancer growth: study” and the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) that proclaimed “Chemo ‘undermines itself’ through rogue response“. Headlines that disappeared from the front pages as quickly as they appeared…

    The article behind it all?

    “Treatment-induced damage to the tumor microenvironment promotes prostate cancer therapy resistance through WNT16B” is the less-than-exciting title for the scholarly article submitted by a group of researchers and published online by the peer-review journal Nature Medicine on August 5th.

    You may view the article here: http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.2890.html

    And here is the abstract from the article:

    Acquired resistance to anticancer treatments is a substantial barrier to reducing the morbidity and mortality that is attributable to malignant tumors. Components of tissue microenvironments are recognized to profoundly influence cellular phenotypes, including susceptibilities to toxic insults. Using a genome-wide analysis of transcriptional responses to genotoxic stress induced by cancer therapeutics, we identified a spectrum of secreted proteins derived from the tumor microenvironment that includes the Wnt family member wingless-type MMTV integration site family member 16B (WNT16B). We determined that WNT16B expression is regulated by nuclear factor of κ light polypeptide gene enhancer in B cells 1 (NF-κB) after DNA damage and subsequently signals in a paracrine manner to activate the canonical Wnt program in tumor cells. The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression. These results delineate a mechanism by which genotoxic therapies given in a cyclical manner can enhance subsequent treatment resistance through cell nonautonomous effects that are contributed by the tumor microenvironment.

     

    Whew!  Now that’s a mouthful of mumbo-jumbo! All those who understood much more than the first sentence, raise your hands – everybody now, raise your hands… anybody? Yep, I thought so – my hand is not raised either!

    This is some very dense stuff – perfect reading for anyone having trouble falling asleep – and it took me some time to work my way through it. I could say that it was because I kept falling asleep because it is so dry, but that wouldn’t be true – the truth is that as I got deeper into the article it became more and more interesting.

    This research article turns out to be validating what we have been saying at The Wellness Club for a long time: to wit, the damage caused by toxic chemotherapy treatment regimens is not confined to cancerous cells – it affects healthy tissues, leaving them weakened and susceptible, and actually causes normal tissues to secrete a substance called WNT 16B.

    It seems that WNT 16B protects cancer cells from the chemotherapy, helps future generations of the cancer cells become resistant to the chemotherapy, and may even encourage cancer cells to grow and invade surrounding tissues.

    Wow – no wonder conventional cancer chemotherapy has such a bad record of success!

    Now, before you go and say “yeah, yeah, those Wellness Club people – they’re just against anything that isn’t all natural…” and tune out and turn off, please know that Dr. Myatt is not opposed to using chemotherapy for treating cancer!

    Are you surprised? Shocked? Confused?

    You shouldn’t be – for cancers have been successfully treated using chemotoxic substances for thousands of years. It is only in the last fifty years or so that Big Pharma has taken successful traditional natural treatments and turned them into increasingly vicious toxins in their attempt to give us patent-able and thus profitable drug treatments.

    Dr. Myatt has written a number of articles discussing natural cancer treatment and has spoken before national medical audiences on the subject. Here is what she has to say in her lecture “Dietary Ketosis In The Treatment of Solid Tissue Malignancy”:

    Many believe that cancer cells, damaged by mutation, are more resilient than normal cells. However, malignant cells are largely incapable of the metabolic flexibility displayed by normal cells, and therein lies their weakness and the potential for a gentle but highly effective point of attack.

     

    Dr. Myatt believes that Big Pharma could learn from the ancients – who, lacking the hideously toxic chemotherapy drugs of today had to achieve their treatment successes with more natural and less damaging means.

    Dr. Myatt also believes that there are circumstances where carefully selected conventional chemotherapy may be a wise choice and that when a conventional oncologist plans a course of conventional chemotherapy a supportive regimen of natural treatments can greatly improve the odds in favor of success. Dr. Myatt often works closely  with her patient’s conventional doctors, helping her patients to endure the treatments with far fewer side effects (sometimes none!) and with much better outcomes.

    Her paper “Nutritional and Botanical Considerations in the Systemic Treatment of Cancer: 2010 Update” discusses a large number of natural substances that have anti-cancer effects, compares them to modern chemotherapeutic agents (hint – the natural stuff often works as well or better and with far fewer unpleasant side effects), and provides full scientific and medical references for her findings.

    So, let’s just say that we at The Wellness Club are not surprised by the findings of this study, and that we are not surprised that the headlines disappeared so quickly – for this is quite an indictment of the failure of modern cancer therapy. We can be sure that Big Pharma will not tolerate this sort of bad press. Cancer, after all, is big business!

    If you want to learn more about natural treatments for cancer please check out the resources at the bottom of this article.

    And if you are considering treatment options for cancer it is worth remembering the words of one ancient master:

    “Attack by stratagem: hence, to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
    supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
    —Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”

     

    Cancer is a formidable opponent and finding a doctor who is willing to take on such a challenge can be difficult.

    Even more difficult is to find a doctor like Dr. Myatt (and yes, there are others like her!) who will take on the challenge of treating cancer without resorting exclusively to Big Pharma’s toxic chemotherapy drugs. It is almost never too late to begin therapy that will weaken and eventually subdue cancer. Dr. Myatt has many success stories in her files, including patients who have come to her with “inoperable” and “untreatable” Stage 4 cancers and who are alive and well today or who have gone on to live many more years, without the misery of chemotherapy. (For those who may not know, “Stage 4” is the end stage for cancer – “Stage 5” would be the memorial service for the deceased.)

    If you or a loved one has been told they have cancer a Brief Phone Consultation with Dr. Myatt could be life-saving!

     

    Resources:

    Dr. Myatt is available for telephone consultations: Alternative Medicine Consultations and Brief Phone Consultations

    Cancer – Natural Strategies and Support; (generalized recommendations)

    Nutritional and Botanical Considerations in the Systemic Treatment of Cancer: 2010 Update

    Dietary Ketosis In The Treatment of Solid Tissue Malignancy

  • Does Your Family Drink These Poisons?

     

    Does Your Family Drink These Poisons?

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    Soda pop is slop. File this under “more good reasons to avoid soda pop.”

     

    Tooth decay, overweight, diabetes and osteoporosis are the lesser problems associated with soda pop consumption.

    But there is an even more sinister side to America’s favorite beverage.

    Benzene, a highly toxic compound that can cause liver cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease and accelerated aging — is found in many sodas.

    In my opinion, soda pop is one of the most harmful beverages a person can drink. Let’s review the evidence.

    Each 12-ounce can of soda pop contains between 10 and 12 teaspoons of sugar. The increase in soda pop consumption parallels our current epidemic of obesity, overweight and diabetes.

    Soda pop rots teeth, but it is not the sugar alone that causes this. The acidity of soda pop combined with high sugar levels form a tooth-destroying combination.

    Phosphates in soda pop, combined with the fact that soda often replaces calcium-containing drinks like milk, are associated with an increased risk of bone loss.

    And these are the “lesser problems” that soda causes:

    Most soda contains the chemical preservative sodium benzoate. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is another common additive. When sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid interact, the highly toxic chemical benzene is formed. Benzene is an aggressive carcinogen, even in minute amounts. Any drink which contains both sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid can contain benzene.

    But now there is more evidence which suggests that sodium benzoate by itself can cause DNA damage. Research from Sheffield University in Britain shows that sodium benzoate, a common preservative in soda pop, pickles, sauces, and many other “food stuffs” has the ability to shut off vital parts of DNA known as the “mitochondria.”

    Mitochondria are the “power stations” inside the cell. According to lead researcher Piper, “These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: They knock it out altogether.”

    When the mitochondria are damaged, the cell begins to malfunction in a serious way. Conditions such as Parkinson’s, cirrhosis of the liver, and accelerated aging, can be linked to this type of cellular damage.

    Here’s the bottom line. We have no idea how many of these “harmless” artificial ingredients and chemical preservatives in our food can cause disease. Short-term effects are studied in the lab but long-term effects are unknown until the public acts as “guinea pigs” by consuming these chemicals for many years.

    To protect yourself, just avoid soda pop, period. Eat more “real” (unprocessed) food. Look for “sodium benzoate” on food labels and when you see it (as they say on those old TV “Cop Shows”), set the drink down and back away slowly, and no one gets hurt.

     

    Product Acid
    (Low Number=BAD)

    Sugar per 12 oz
    Pure Water 7.00 (neutral)

    0.0
    Barq’s 4.61

    10.7 tsp.
    Diet Coke 3.39

    0.0
    Mountain Dew 3.22

    11.0 tsp.
    Gatorade 2.95

    3.3 tsp
    Coke Classic 2.63

    9.3 tsp.
    Pepsi 2.49

    9.8 tsp.
    Sprite 3.42

    9.0
    Diet 7-Up 3.67

    0.0
    Diet Dr. Pepper 3.41

    0.0
    Surge 3.02

    10.0
    Gatorade 2.95

    3.3
    Hawaiian Fruit Punch 2.82

    10.2
    Orange Minute Maid 2.80

    11.2
    Dr. Pepper 2.92

    9.5
    BATTERY ACID 1.00

    0.0
    Source:
    Minnesota Dental Association *

    The threshold pH for enamel dissolution is 5.5 (and lower)

    		  

     

    Nurse Mark Adds:

    You may be interested to know that our mighty, ever-vigilant, and ever-protective FDA (which we think really stands for “Fleece and Dope Americans”) sets no limits to benzene in any beverages sold in America except bottled water – this according to the FDA’s own website! Unbelievable, but true – the FDA is happy to let the soda pop industry “develop guidance” that it claims will “minimize” (not eliminate, just “minimize“) benzene in it’s products.

    Most (if not all) of the so-called “Sports Drinks” and “Energy Drinks” – especially those labeled as “Diet” and containing artificial sweeteners – are little more than a chemical soup of potential carcinogens and neurotoxins.

    Many of our patients have told us that one of the most difficult things that they have had to do in order to restore their health was to give up their favorite soda pop or other flavored drink. Dr. Myatt searched high and low to find a satisfying and healthy replacement and discovered a product called ZipFizz. This is a powdered drink mixture packaged in tough, convenient little single-serving tubes that add easily to a standard size bottle of water. ZipFizz is an excellent, healthy alternative to sugary sodas and “sports drinks” – perfect to take to work or the office for a healthy break or to send to school with the kids – stop allowing them to poison themselves with tooth-rotting, bone-leaching, cancer-causing junky soft drinks!

    References:

    1.) Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis. Lancet 2001;357:505–8.
    2.) Soft drink consumption among US children and adolescents: nutritional consequences. J Am Diet Assoc 1999;99:436–41.
    3.) Carbonated beverages, dietary calcium, the dietary calcium/phosphorus ratio, and bone fractures in girls and boys. J Adolescent Health 1994;15:210–5.
    4.) Consumption of soft drinks with phosphoric acid as a risk factor for the development of hypocalcemia in children: a case-control study. J Pediatr 1995;126:940–2.
    5.) Phosphates and caries. Lancet 1968;i:1431.[letter]
    6.) Beverage ingredients can form carcinogen. Consum Rep. 2006 Oct;71(10):7.
    7.) Benzene in beverages. FDA Consum. 2006 Sep-Oct;40(5):9-10.  http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2006/506_benzene.htm
    8.) Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health: Expert links additive to cell damage. The Independent, Sunday, 27 May 2007