(NaturalNews) A new study shows that the increasingly popular practice of "preventive mastectomy" in non-cancerous breasts provides no benefit to the vast majority of women.
"It's important for women to understand that, except for one subset of breast cancer patients, they don't need to do this," said lead author Isabelle Bedrosian of University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. "Hopefully, it'll reassure patients wondering if they should."
Approximately 40,000 women die from breast cancer in the United States each year, and another 200,000 cases are diagnosed. Because cancer in one breast is known to increase the risk of cancer recurrence in the other breast, doctors are increasingly recommending that cancer survivors opt to have both breasts removed as a "preventive" measure. And women are opting for it in huge numbers, seeking the peace of mind that it is said to offer.
The number of preventive mastectomies in the United States increased two-and-a-half-fold between 1998 and 2003. Today, 11 percent of all women undergoing a mastectomy on a cancerous breast choose to have the non-cancerous breast removed as well. Analysts have attributed this increase to more advanced screening techniques that detect cancers smaller and earlier; popularization of genetic screening and the idea that some genes may predispose families to breast cancer; and wider public acceptance of plastic surgery combined with advances in reconstructive technology.
Yet while it has been strongly established that elective mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence, there has been no research to suggest that it actually lengthens a woman's life span.
"We have not had real data to guide us," Bedrosian said. "We can't sit down with a woman and say, 'If you do this, this is your expected benefit.' And when we don't have those data, then biases become the big drivers of decision making."
In the new study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Bedrosian and colleagues analyzed the records of 107,106 women in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry. All the women had undergone a mastectomy to treat breast cancer of Stage III or lower; 8,902 had chosen to have a healthy breast removed, as well.
After controlling for other risk factors, the researchers found only a small difference in survival rates between women who had chosen to have two breasts removed and women who had chosen to have only one removed. Upon further analysis, they discovered that this benefit was only present in women under the age of 50 with estrogen receptor-negative, early-stage tumors. In this group, elective mastectomy increased the survival rate by 4.8 percent, amounting to just under five lives saved for every 100 surgeries.
Elective mastectomy provided no survival benefit to women outside this demographic.
The researchers believe that even when cancers recur, most women will not be killed by them but will instead die of other causes first. Only in women whose cancers lack estrogen receptors and who would otherwise have long lives ahead of them does recurrence appear to pose a serious threat to survival.
The most effective breast cancer drugs on the market are those that lower the body's production of estrogen, which fuels the growth of many cancers. Tumors that lack estrogen receptors do not depend on the hormone for their growth, however, meaning that women with these cancers cannot use the most effective drugs and tend to have higher mortality rates.
Breast-cancer specialist Larry Norton of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City expressed skepticism about the study's methodology and cautioned against doctors and patients giving it too much weight.
"This is an observational study, and hence it is impossible to control for confounding variables," Norton said, "and should not be used for individual clinical decisionmaking."
Norton admitted, however, that ethics make it impossible to perform a true controlled study on the question, since such an experiment might end up increasing cancer mortality in one group of participants.
Bedrosian disputed Norton's criticism, noting that the researchers used rigorous statistical analysis and controlled well for interference from other variables. She believes that the conclusions are, in fact, strong enough to help women make better-informed decisions about elective mastectomy.
"We looked at this in multiple different ways, and we got the same answer every time. And the results make good clinical sense. That adds another level of reassurance," she said. "Our hope is that when women hear the numbers, they will take a second look and decide not to go forward with a preventive mastectomy [in their healthy breast] if it won't give them a survival benefit."
Victor Vogel, national vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, said the results suggest that women should wait a full year before going through with the removal of a healthy breast.
"In a younger woman with [estrogen receptor]-negative disease, an [elective} mastectomy may be considered," he said. "In the vast majority of women older than 50 with ER-positive disease, prudent waiting is probably the most appropriate."
Bedrosian said that the point of the study was not to impose "a uniform mandate" that women should never get the procedure, but that their decisions must be well informed.
"This is still a decision to be made by the patient after talking with her doctor," Bedrosian said.
"We hope this study helps women make better decisions [and] provides some reassurance that perhaps a [preventive] mastectomy is not necessary, perhaps overly aggressive and perhaps a bit too much."
Sources for this story include: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art... http://www.time.com/time/health/art....
Showing posts with label breast cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breast cancer. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Study shows how radiation causes breast cancer
(NaturalNews) It's well-established that exposure to ionizing radiation can trigger mutations and other genetic damage and cause normal cells to become malignant. So it seems amazing how mainstream medicine frequently dismisses the idea that medical imaging tests from mammograms to CT scans could play much of a role in causing breast cancer. Take this example from the web site for Cornell University's Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors:
In answer to the question "Is ionizing radiation a cause of breast cancer?", the Cornell experts say "Yes" and note ".. female breast tissue is highly susceptible to radiation effects." But then they pooh-pooh the possible hazard from mammography x-rays saying the risk …"should not be a factor in individual decisions to undergo this procedure. The same is true for most diagnostic x-ray procedures."
If that's not confusing enough, they turn around and state: "Nonetheless, unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided and continued vigilance is required to ensure that the benefits associated with specific procedures outweigh the future risks."
The reason is that signals from a cell's microenvironment, altered by radiation exposure, can cause a cell's phenotype (made up of all its biochemical and physical characteristics) to change by regulating or de-regulating the way a cell uses its genes. The result can be a cell that not only becomes pre-cancerous but that passes this pre-malignant condition on to future cells.
"Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous," Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab's Life Sciences Division, said in a statement to the press.
"Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment," he added.
For their study, Yaswen and his research teams used human mammary epithelial cells (HMECs), the cells that line breast ducts, where most breast cancers start. When placed in a culture dish, the vast majority of HMECs display a phenotype that allows them to divide between five and 20 times until they become what is known as senescent, or unable to divide. However, there are also some variants of these cells which have a phenotype that allows them to continue dividing for many weeks in culture. Known as a vHMEC phenotype, this type of breast cell arises spontaneously and is more susceptible to malignancy because it lacks a tumor-suppressing protein dubbed p16.
To find out what radiation exposure does to the cellular environment and how it could impact the future of cell behavior, the Berkeley Lab scientists grew sets of HMECs from normal breast tissue in culture dishes for about a week. Then they zapped each set with a single treatment of a low-to-moderate dose of radiation and compared the irradiated cells to sets of breast cells that had not been irradiated.
The results, just published in the on-line journal Breast Cancer Research, showed that four to six weeks after the radiation exposure, the normal breast cancer cells had stopped dividing far earlier than they would have normally -- and this premature cell senescence had accelerated the outgrowth of vHMECS.
"However, by getting normal cells to prematurely age and stop dividing, the radiation exposure created space for epigenetically altered cells that would otherwise have been filled by normal cells. In other words, the radiation promoted the growth of pre-cancerous cells by making the environment that surrounded the cells more hospitable to their continued growth," Yaswen explained in the press statement.
The researchers pointed out that the levels of radiation used in their experiments were not as much as a woman would be exposed to during a single routine mammogram but were comparable to those a woman could receive during a CT scans or radiotherapy "and could represent sources of concern."
Of course, women are often pushed to get annual mammograms, raising their overall radiation exposure through the years. And, as NaturalNews has reported, previous research has already provided compelling evidence linking mammography to breast cancer.
For example, a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html). And a Johns Hopkins study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded radiation exposure from mammograms could trigger malignancies in women at risk for genetic breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025560_c...).
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/fac...
In answer to the question "Is ionizing radiation a cause of breast cancer?", the Cornell experts say "Yes" and note ".. female breast tissue is highly susceptible to radiation effects." But then they pooh-pooh the possible hazard from mammography x-rays saying the risk …"should not be a factor in individual decisions to undergo this procedure. The same is true for most diagnostic x-ray procedures."
If that's not confusing enough, they turn around and state: "Nonetheless, unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided and continued vigilance is required to ensure that the benefits associated with specific procedures outweigh the future risks."
Why radiation causes breast cancer
Common sense suggests there is plenty of reason to be worried about radiation causing breast cancer. And now there's a new reason to be concerned. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have discovered that radiation exposure can alter cells' microenvironment (the environment surrounding cells). And that greatly raises the odds future cells will become cancerous.The reason is that signals from a cell's microenvironment, altered by radiation exposure, can cause a cell's phenotype (made up of all its biochemical and physical characteristics) to change by regulating or de-regulating the way a cell uses its genes. The result can be a cell that not only becomes pre-cancerous but that passes this pre-malignant condition on to future cells.
"Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous," Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab's Life Sciences Division, said in a statement to the press.
"Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment," he added.
For their study, Yaswen and his research teams used human mammary epithelial cells (HMECs), the cells that line breast ducts, where most breast cancers start. When placed in a culture dish, the vast majority of HMECs display a phenotype that allows them to divide between five and 20 times until they become what is known as senescent, or unable to divide. However, there are also some variants of these cells which have a phenotype that allows them to continue dividing for many weeks in culture. Known as a vHMEC phenotype, this type of breast cell arises spontaneously and is more susceptible to malignancy because it lacks a tumor-suppressing protein dubbed p16.
To find out what radiation exposure does to the cellular environment and how it could impact the future of cell behavior, the Berkeley Lab scientists grew sets of HMECs from normal breast tissue in culture dishes for about a week. Then they zapped each set with a single treatment of a low-to-moderate dose of radiation and compared the irradiated cells to sets of breast cells that had not been irradiated.
The results, just published in the on-line journal Breast Cancer Research, showed that four to six weeks after the radiation exposure, the normal breast cancer cells had stopped dividing far earlier than they would have normally -- and this premature cell senescence had accelerated the outgrowth of vHMECS.
"However, by getting normal cells to prematurely age and stop dividing, the radiation exposure created space for epigenetically altered cells that would otherwise have been filled by normal cells. In other words, the radiation promoted the growth of pre-cancerous cells by making the environment that surrounded the cells more hospitable to their continued growth," Yaswen explained in the press statement.
The researchers pointed out that the levels of radiation used in their experiments were not as much as a woman would be exposed to during a single routine mammogram but were comparable to those a woman could receive during a CT scans or radiotherapy "and could represent sources of concern."
Of course, women are often pushed to get annual mammograms, raising their overall radiation exposure through the years. And, as NaturalNews has reported, previous research has already provided compelling evidence linking mammography to breast cancer.
For example, a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html). And a Johns Hopkins study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded radiation exposure from mammograms could trigger malignancies in women at risk for genetic breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025560_c...).
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/fac...
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Pomegranates reduce the risk of breast cancer
(NaturalNews) Regular consumption of pomegranate may help prevent breast cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers from the City of Hope and published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research.
Researchers tested 10 different naturally occurring pomegranate compounds, all of them in the ellagitannin family of chemicals. They found that some of the ellagitannins significantly reduced the activity of the enzyme aromatase in the laboratory.
In the body, aromatase transforms the hormone androgen into the hormone estrogen. Because 75 percent of breast tumors contain estrogen receptors and use the hormone to fuel their growth, aromatase inhibitors are a popular form of treatment for slowing the growth of breast tumors in post-menopausal women.
Pharmaceutical aromatase inhibitors include the AstraZeneca drug Armidex, the Pfizer drug Aromasin and the Novartis drug Femara.
"We were surprised by our findings," researcher Shiuan Chen said. "We previously found other fruits, such as grapes, to be capable of the inhibition of aromatase. But phytochemicals in pomegranates and in grapes are different."
Of the 10 chemicals tested, urolithin B was the most effective at aromatase inhibition. Researchers offered two caveats to their findings, however. First of all, the body does not absorb ellagitannins into the blood very effectively from the digestive tract. Second of all, the researchers tested very high doses of the chemicals, much higher than those found in pomegranate. This suggests that an actual pomegranate-based cancer treatment may still be far in the future.
"We do not recommend people start taking this as a replacement for the [aromatase inhibitors]," Chen said. "[Pomegranate compounds] are not as potent as the real drugs so we think that the interest probably is more on the prevention end rather than in a therapeutic purpose."
Pomegranate juice has been shown to be rich in a wide variety of antioxidants that are believed to reduce the risk of not only cancers, but also other chronic conditions such as Alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.webmd.com.
Researchers tested 10 different naturally occurring pomegranate compounds, all of them in the ellagitannin family of chemicals. They found that some of the ellagitannins significantly reduced the activity of the enzyme aromatase in the laboratory.
In the body, aromatase transforms the hormone androgen into the hormone estrogen. Because 75 percent of breast tumors contain estrogen receptors and use the hormone to fuel their growth, aromatase inhibitors are a popular form of treatment for slowing the growth of breast tumors in post-menopausal women.
Pharmaceutical aromatase inhibitors include the AstraZeneca drug Armidex, the Pfizer drug Aromasin and the Novartis drug Femara.
"We were surprised by our findings," researcher Shiuan Chen said. "We previously found other fruits, such as grapes, to be capable of the inhibition of aromatase. But phytochemicals in pomegranates and in grapes are different."
Of the 10 chemicals tested, urolithin B was the most effective at aromatase inhibition. Researchers offered two caveats to their findings, however. First of all, the body does not absorb ellagitannins into the blood very effectively from the digestive tract. Second of all, the researchers tested very high doses of the chemicals, much higher than those found in pomegranate. This suggests that an actual pomegranate-based cancer treatment may still be far in the future.
"We do not recommend people start taking this as a replacement for the [aromatase inhibitors]," Chen said. "[Pomegranate compounds] are not as potent as the real drugs so we think that the interest probably is more on the prevention end rather than in a therapeutic purpose."
Pomegranate juice has been shown to be rich in a wide variety of antioxidants that are believed to reduce the risk of not only cancers, but also other chronic conditions such as Alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.webmd.com.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Bitter melon stops breast cancer cells from growing and spreading
(NaturalNews) A vegetable commonly eaten in India and China called bitter melon (also known by the botanical name Momordica charantia), has been shown in previous studies to have a beneficial impact on blood sugar and cholesterol levels. It turns out that's not all the health benefits bitter melon offers. A new study by Saint Louis University scientists provides evidence the vegetable triggers a chain of events on a cellular level that stops breast cancer cells from multiplying and also kills them.
Lead researcher Ratna Ray, Ph.D., a professor in the department of pathology at Saint Louis University, noted in a statement to the media that she personally uses bitter melon when she cooks stir fry dishes. She decided to investigate the health effects of bitter melon extract after other researchers discovered how it can lower blood sugar and regulate cholesterol levels. In fact, bitter melon extract has been used by traditional healers in China and India for centuries as a natural treatment for diabetes. But Dr. Ray was surprised to find this vegetable was a powerful inhibitor of breast cancer growth, too.
"To our knowledge, this is the first report describing the effect of bitter melon extract on cancer cells," Dr. Ray stated. "Our result was encouraging. We have shown that bitter melon extract significantly induced death in breast cancer cells and decreased their growth and spread."
The research, published in the March 1 edition of Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, involved human breast cancer cells exposed to bitter melon extract in the lab. Dr. Ray cautioned that it is too early to jump to conclusions that the extract could help breast cancer patients -- but her findings are promising.
"Cancer prevention by the use of naturally occurring dietary substances is considered a practical approach to reduce the ever-increasing incidence of cancer. Studying a high risk breast cancer population where bitter melon is taken as a dietary product will be an important area of future research," Dr. Ray said in the press statement.
Dr. Ray and colleagues are currently conducting follow-up studies. They are looking at a number of different cancer cell lines in order to investigate how bitter melon halts cancer cell growth. They are also planning to test the vegetable extract in animals to see if it will delay or kill breast cancer cells. If that research goes well, clinical trials in human breast cancer patients could soon follow.
"Breast cancer is a major killer among women around the world, and in that perspective, results from this study are quite significant," Rajesh Agarwal, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Colorado, Denver School of Pharmacy, and the Cancer Research associate editor for this study, commented in a media release. "This study may provide us with one more agent as an extract that could be used against breast cancer if additional studies hold true."
Bitter melon is widely grown in Asia, Africa and South America. Extracts of this vegetable are currently included in some dietary supplements in Western countries because bitter melon is known to contain healthful phytochemicals such as carotenoids, flavanoids and polyphenols, as well as vitamin C.
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/bitter_m...
Lead researcher Ratna Ray, Ph.D., a professor in the department of pathology at Saint Louis University, noted in a statement to the media that she personally uses bitter melon when she cooks stir fry dishes. She decided to investigate the health effects of bitter melon extract after other researchers discovered how it can lower blood sugar and regulate cholesterol levels. In fact, bitter melon extract has been used by traditional healers in China and India for centuries as a natural treatment for diabetes. But Dr. Ray was surprised to find this vegetable was a powerful inhibitor of breast cancer growth, too.
"To our knowledge, this is the first report describing the effect of bitter melon extract on cancer cells," Dr. Ray stated. "Our result was encouraging. We have shown that bitter melon extract significantly induced death in breast cancer cells and decreased their growth and spread."
The research, published in the March 1 edition of Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, involved human breast cancer cells exposed to bitter melon extract in the lab. Dr. Ray cautioned that it is too early to jump to conclusions that the extract could help breast cancer patients -- but her findings are promising.
"Cancer prevention by the use of naturally occurring dietary substances is considered a practical approach to reduce the ever-increasing incidence of cancer. Studying a high risk breast cancer population where bitter melon is taken as a dietary product will be an important area of future research," Dr. Ray said in the press statement.
Dr. Ray and colleagues are currently conducting follow-up studies. They are looking at a number of different cancer cell lines in order to investigate how bitter melon halts cancer cell growth. They are also planning to test the vegetable extract in animals to see if it will delay or kill breast cancer cells. If that research goes well, clinical trials in human breast cancer patients could soon follow.
"Breast cancer is a major killer among women around the world, and in that perspective, results from this study are quite significant," Rajesh Agarwal, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Colorado, Denver School of Pharmacy, and the Cancer Research associate editor for this study, commented in a media release. "This study may provide us with one more agent as an extract that could be used against breast cancer if additional studies hold true."
Bitter melon is widely grown in Asia, Africa and South America. Extracts of this vegetable are currently included in some dietary supplements in Western countries because bitter melon is known to contain healthful phytochemicals such as carotenoids, flavanoids and polyphenols, as well as vitamin C.
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/bitter_m...
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Women being conned about breast cancer screening
(NaturalNews) Western medicine relies heavily on convincing people that they need some sort of drug or surgery to remedy their ills and gain health. Studies often contain manipulated facts and skewed statistics that paint a favorable picture of some new procedure or treatment while shrouding the truth about the risks involved. The alleged benefits of breast cancer screenings are no exception as women are continually tricked into believing that mammograms will greatly benefit them when the facts show that they are largely ineffective.
Using an approach called mismatched framing, cancer studies will present side effects in absolute terms while exaggerating benefits in relative terms. When two different metric systems are used to present one set of findings, the results are deceptive albeit technically true.
One statistic says that regular breast cancer screenings reduce the number of breast cancer deaths by 25 percent. While this sounds like a large amount, the truth of the matter is that out of every 1,000 women who get regularly screened, only one extra life would be saved. Apart from screening, four out every 1,000 women will die from breast cancer; with screening, only three would die. The reduction from four to three represents the 25 percent statistic.
However the other half of the story is that 20 percent of those 1,000 women who get screened will be unnecessarily treated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Up to 500 of them will undergo a needless biopsy due to an inaccurate screening. These monumental risks are never mentioned alongside the glowing endorsements that deceptively use the 25 percent reduction figure to lure women into continuing with screenings.
Drug behemoth Pfizer did the same thing with its Lipitor drug, claiming that those with multiple risk factors who take it will be 36 percent less likely to have a heart attack. When evaluated in absolute terms, two out of every 100 people who take Lipitor will have a heart attack; three out of every 100 people who do not take Lipitor will have a heart attack. The absolute increase in negative side effects among those who take Lipitor versus those who do not is not mentioned in context with the 36 percent reduction claim.
A study conducted by BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet found that about 33 percent of papers published in medical journals fail to use consistent metrics when presenting study findings. The result is a misrepresentation of the truth by the illness industry, drug companies, and the doctors and journalists who aid them in their deception.
Sources for this story include: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...
Using an approach called mismatched framing, cancer studies will present side effects in absolute terms while exaggerating benefits in relative terms. When two different metric systems are used to present one set of findings, the results are deceptive albeit technically true.
One statistic says that regular breast cancer screenings reduce the number of breast cancer deaths by 25 percent. While this sounds like a large amount, the truth of the matter is that out of every 1,000 women who get regularly screened, only one extra life would be saved. Apart from screening, four out every 1,000 women will die from breast cancer; with screening, only three would die. The reduction from four to three represents the 25 percent statistic.
However the other half of the story is that 20 percent of those 1,000 women who get screened will be unnecessarily treated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Up to 500 of them will undergo a needless biopsy due to an inaccurate screening. These monumental risks are never mentioned alongside the glowing endorsements that deceptively use the 25 percent reduction figure to lure women into continuing with screenings.
Drug behemoth Pfizer did the same thing with its Lipitor drug, claiming that those with multiple risk factors who take it will be 36 percent less likely to have a heart attack. When evaluated in absolute terms, two out of every 100 people who take Lipitor will have a heart attack; three out of every 100 people who do not take Lipitor will have a heart attack. The absolute increase in negative side effects among those who take Lipitor versus those who do not is not mentioned in context with the 36 percent reduction claim.
A study conducted by BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet found that about 33 percent of papers published in medical journals fail to use consistent metrics when presenting study findings. The result is a misrepresentation of the truth by the illness industry, drug companies, and the doctors and journalists who aid them in their deception.
Sources for this story include: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Breast cancer virtually "eradicated" with higher levels of vitamin D
(NaturalNews) In a gathering of vitamin D researchers recently held in Toronto, Dr. Cedric Garland delivered a blockbuster announcement: Breast cancer can be virtually "eradicated" by raising vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D is "the cure" for breast cancer that the cancer industry ridiculously claims to be searching for. The cure already exists! But the breast cancer industry simply refuses to acknowledge any "cure" that doesn't involve mammography, chemotherapy or high-profit pharmaceuticals.
Vitamin D is finally gaining some of the recognition it deserves as a miraculous anti-cancer nutrient. It is the solution for cancer prevention. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the U.S. alone. Even Dr. Andrew Weil recently raised his recommendation of vitamin D to 2,000 IU per day.
This is the vitamin that could destroy the cancer industry and save millions of women from the degrading, harmful cancer "treatments" pushed by conventional medicine. No wonder they don't want to talk about it! The cancer industry would prefer to keep women ignorant about this vitamin that could save their breasts and their lives.
Below I'm reprinting the full statement from Dr. Cedric Garland following the Vitamin D conference recently held in Toronto.
That's the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine's "Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency" conference - the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.
Garland's presentation headlined a conference that reviewed many aspects of the emerging vitamin D research field - a booming discipline that has seen more than 3,000 academic papers this calendar year alone, conference organizers said. That makes vitamin D by far the most prolific topic in medicine this year, with work connecting it with risk reduction in two dozen forms of cancer, heart disease, multiple scleroses and many other disorders.
Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Associate Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at University of Toronto, and Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, organized the event in conjunction with Grassroots Health - an international vitamin D advocacy group founded by breast cancer survivor Carole Baggerly.
Baggerly implored the research group to take action and encourage Canadians to learn more about vitamin D and to raise their vitamin D levels.
An estimated 22,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, according to the Canadian Cancer Society's latest figures.
As much as 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some point in the year, according to University of Calgary research - largely due to Canada's northerly latitudes and weak sun exposure. Sunshine is by far the most abundant source of vitamin D - called 'The Sunshine Vitamin' - with salmon and fortified milk being other sources. Vitamin D supplementation helps raise levels for many as well.
Grassroots Health's "D-action" panel - 30 of the world's leading researchers on vitamin D and many other vitamin D supporters - recommend 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily and vitamin D blood levels of 100-150 nanomoles-per-liter as measured by a vitamin D blood test.
Vieth pointed out that natural vitamin D levels of mammals who live outdoors in sunny climates is higher than that - up to 200 nanomoles-per liter. And Garland, whose presentation was entitled "Breast Cancer as a Vitamin D Deficiency Disease" presented data showing that raising one's vitamin D status near those levels decreased breast cancer risk more than 77 percent.
'The Sunshine Vitamin' was once thought of only for bone health, helping the body process calcium. But more recent work has shown that all cells in the body have "vitamin D receptors" which help control normal cell growth. Additionally, Garland presented new evidence that low vitamin D status compromises the integrity of calcium-based cellular bonding within tissues, which when eroded allow rogue cancer cells to spread more readily.
Grassroots Health is trying to raise vitamin D awareness among Canadians. Despite epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency in Canada, fewer than nine per cent of Canadians have ever had their vitamin D levels checked by a professional and most who have do not know their vitamin D blood level.
Vitamin D is "the cure" for breast cancer that the cancer industry ridiculously claims to be searching for. The cure already exists! But the breast cancer industry simply refuses to acknowledge any "cure" that doesn't involve mammography, chemotherapy or high-profit pharmaceuticals.
Vitamin D is finally gaining some of the recognition it deserves as a miraculous anti-cancer nutrient. It is the solution for cancer prevention. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the U.S. alone. Even Dr. Andrew Weil recently raised his recommendation of vitamin D to 2,000 IU per day.
This is the vitamin that could destroy the cancer industry and save millions of women from the degrading, harmful cancer "treatments" pushed by conventional medicine. No wonder they don't want to talk about it! The cancer industry would prefer to keep women ignorant about this vitamin that could save their breasts and their lives.
Below I'm reprinting the full statement from Dr. Cedric Garland following the Vitamin D conference recently held in Toronto.
Statement from Dr. Cedric Garland
Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman's risk of contracting the disease can be 'virtually eradicated' by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.That's the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland delivered in Toronto Tuesday as part of the University of Toronto School of Medicine's "Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency" conference - the largest gathering of vitamin D researchers in North America this year. More than 170 researchers, public health officials and health practitioners gathered at the UT Faculty club for the landmark event.
Garland's presentation headlined a conference that reviewed many aspects of the emerging vitamin D research field - a booming discipline that has seen more than 3,000 academic papers this calendar year alone, conference organizers said. That makes vitamin D by far the most prolific topic in medicine this year, with work connecting it with risk reduction in two dozen forms of cancer, heart disease, multiple scleroses and many other disorders.
Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Associate Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at University of Toronto, and Director of the Bone and Mineral Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, organized the event in conjunction with Grassroots Health - an international vitamin D advocacy group founded by breast cancer survivor Carole Baggerly.
Baggerly implored the research group to take action and encourage Canadians to learn more about vitamin D and to raise their vitamin D levels.
An estimated 22,700 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009, according to the Canadian Cancer Society's latest figures.
As much as 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some point in the year, according to University of Calgary research - largely due to Canada's northerly latitudes and weak sun exposure. Sunshine is by far the most abundant source of vitamin D - called 'The Sunshine Vitamin' - with salmon and fortified milk being other sources. Vitamin D supplementation helps raise levels for many as well.
Grassroots Health's "D-action" panel - 30 of the world's leading researchers on vitamin D and many other vitamin D supporters - recommend 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily and vitamin D blood levels of 100-150 nanomoles-per-liter as measured by a vitamin D blood test.
Vieth pointed out that natural vitamin D levels of mammals who live outdoors in sunny climates is higher than that - up to 200 nanomoles-per liter. And Garland, whose presentation was entitled "Breast Cancer as a Vitamin D Deficiency Disease" presented data showing that raising one's vitamin D status near those levels decreased breast cancer risk more than 77 percent.
'The Sunshine Vitamin' was once thought of only for bone health, helping the body process calcium. But more recent work has shown that all cells in the body have "vitamin D receptors" which help control normal cell growth. Additionally, Garland presented new evidence that low vitamin D status compromises the integrity of calcium-based cellular bonding within tissues, which when eroded allow rogue cancer cells to spread more readily.
Grassroots Health is trying to raise vitamin D awareness among Canadians. Despite epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency in Canada, fewer than nine per cent of Canadians have ever had their vitamin D levels checked by a professional and most who have do not know their vitamin D blood level.
Friday, January 22, 2010
New study: mango prevents and halts growth of colon and breast cancer cells
(NaturalNews) Take a bite of a juicy, sweet mango and you are experiencing a delicious taste enjoyed by countless people from ancient times until today. According to the Orlando-based National Mango Board (NMG), a mango industry-sponsored research, promotion and consumer information program, mangos are known to be rich in vitamins C and A, as well as fiber. However, because little has been documented about any specific health benefits of eating the fruit, NMB has commissioned a variety of scientific studies to investigate these issues.
So far, this research initiative has turned up an unexpected and groundbreaking discovery: in laboratory experiments in Texas A&M University's AgriLife Research department mango fruit prevented or stopped cancer growth in certain breast and colon cell lines.
Food scientists Dr. Susanne Talcott and her co-researcher husband, Dr. Steve Talcott, used the five varieties of mangos (Kent, Francine, Ataulfo, Tommy/Atkins and Haden) most common in the US and specifically tested polyphenol extracts from the fruit on colon, breast, lung, leukemia and prostate cancer cells. Polyphenols are natural substances in plants that are antioxidants with the potential to protect the body from disease. The Talcotts zeroed in on evaluating polyphenolic compounds in mangos known as gallotannins, a class of natural bioactive compounds believed to help prevent or block the growth of cancer cells.
The results? The Talcotts' experiments showed that the mango extract demonstrated some cancer fighting ability when tested on lung, leukemia and prostate cancer cells. But when tested on the most common breast and colon cancers, mango compounds were found to have even stronger anticancer abilities. In fact, the mango extract caused the breast and colon cancer cells to undergo apoptosis -- programmed cell death.
"Additionally, we found that when we tested normal colon cells side by side with the colon cancer cells, the mango polyphenolics did not harm the normal cells," Dr. Susanne Talcott said in a statement to the press. "That is a general observation for any natural agent, that they target cancer cells and leave the healthy cells alone, in reasonable concentrations at least."
The researchers documented that the cancer cell cycle (the division process cells go through) was interrupted by mango extract. This is crucial information, Suzanne Talcott said in a press statement, because it could explain a possible mechanism for how the cancer cells are prevented or stopped by phytochemicals in mangos. "For cells that may be on the verge of mutating or being damaged, mango polyphenolics prevent this kind of damage," she explained.
The scientists have conducted additional research on the colon cancer cell lines because mangos contain small molecules that are readily absorbed in the colon as well as larger molecules that are not absorbed and remain present longer in the colon. Those facts could potentially make eating mangos a potent way to help prevent colon cancer. In fact, the Talcotts are hoping to next conduct a small clinical trial to see if mangos can prevent colon cancer in people at high risk for a malignancy because they have increased inflammation in their intestines.
For more information:
http://agnews.tamu.edu/showstory.ph...
http://www.mango.org/en/nutrition.aspx
So far, this research initiative has turned up an unexpected and groundbreaking discovery: in laboratory experiments in Texas A&M University's AgriLife Research department mango fruit prevented or stopped cancer growth in certain breast and colon cell lines.
Food scientists Dr. Susanne Talcott and her co-researcher husband, Dr. Steve Talcott, used the five varieties of mangos (Kent, Francine, Ataulfo, Tommy/Atkins and Haden) most common in the US and specifically tested polyphenol extracts from the fruit on colon, breast, lung, leukemia and prostate cancer cells. Polyphenols are natural substances in plants that are antioxidants with the potential to protect the body from disease. The Talcotts zeroed in on evaluating polyphenolic compounds in mangos known as gallotannins, a class of natural bioactive compounds believed to help prevent or block the growth of cancer cells.
The results? The Talcotts' experiments showed that the mango extract demonstrated some cancer fighting ability when tested on lung, leukemia and prostate cancer cells. But when tested on the most common breast and colon cancers, mango compounds were found to have even stronger anticancer abilities. In fact, the mango extract caused the breast and colon cancer cells to undergo apoptosis -- programmed cell death.
"Additionally, we found that when we tested normal colon cells side by side with the colon cancer cells, the mango polyphenolics did not harm the normal cells," Dr. Susanne Talcott said in a statement to the press. "That is a general observation for any natural agent, that they target cancer cells and leave the healthy cells alone, in reasonable concentrations at least."
The researchers documented that the cancer cell cycle (the division process cells go through) was interrupted by mango extract. This is crucial information, Suzanne Talcott said in a press statement, because it could explain a possible mechanism for how the cancer cells are prevented or stopped by phytochemicals in mangos. "For cells that may be on the verge of mutating or being damaged, mango polyphenolics prevent this kind of damage," she explained.
The scientists have conducted additional research on the colon cancer cell lines because mangos contain small molecules that are readily absorbed in the colon as well as larger molecules that are not absorbed and remain present longer in the colon. Those facts could potentially make eating mangos a potent way to help prevent colon cancer. In fact, the Talcotts are hoping to next conduct a small clinical trial to see if mangos can prevent colon cancer in people at high risk for a malignancy because they have increased inflammation in their intestines.
For more information:
http://agnews.tamu.edu/showstory.ph...
http://www.mango.org/en/nutrition.aspx
Friday, January 15, 2010
Pomegranates may prevent estrogen-driven breast cancer
(NaturalNews) Many breast cancers are estrogen-dependent. So a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors (AI) that block the synthesis of estrogen are used by mainstream medical doctors to attempt to slow the growth of estrogen sensitive breast tumors. Unfortunately, as the Mayo Clinic web site points out, AI drugs -- which include anastrozole (Arimidex), letrozole (Femara) and exemestane (Aromasin) -- come loaded with side effects including hot flashes, severe joint pain, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, bone fractures and a potential risk of heart disease.
But now comes good news: there appears to be a natural alternative to AIs. Researchers say they've found a substance that could prevent the development of hormone-dependent breast cancer and halt the growth of estrogen-driven tumors -- pomegranate fruit.
Pomegranates contain phytochemicals known as ellagitannins that work much like aromatase inhibitors, according to results of a study just published in the January issue of Cancer Prevention Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. And there's little reason to think any cancer treatment derived from pomegranates would have harmful side effects because the fruit has long been safely consumed as a food.
Shiuan Chen, Ph.D., director of the Division of Tumor Cell Biology and co-leader of the Breast Cancer Research Program at City of Hope in Duarte, California, worked with Lynn Adams, Ph.D., a research fellow at Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, and other scientists to investigate whether phytochemicals in pomegranates can suppress aromatase and thereby inhibit cancer growth. They screened and analyzed 10 ellagitannin-derived compounds in pomegranates. The results? The research team discovered these natural phytochemicals have the potential to prevent estrogen-dependent breast cancers. One particular substance found in pomegranates dubbed Urolithin B significantly inhibited the growth of cultured breast cancer cells in the lab.
"Phytochemicals suppress estrogen production and that prevents the proliferation of breast cancer cells and the growth of estrogen-responsive tumors," said Dr. Chen, the principal investigator, in a statement to the media.
Gary Stoner, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at Ohio State University, commented in a statement to the media that additional studies are needed in animals and humans to confirm the ability of Urolithin B to stop hormone-dependent breast cancer. Dr. Stoner, who was not part of the study research team, also recommended additional studies to test pomegranate juice for its effect on estrogen levels, menopausal symptoms and breast density (dense breast tissue is a risk for breast cancer) and to see if it is a cancer preventive agent.
Until then, Stoner said people "might consider consuming more pomegranates to protect against cancer development in the breast and perhaps in other tissues and organs."
For more information:
http://www.aacr.org/home/public--me...
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/br...
But now comes good news: there appears to be a natural alternative to AIs. Researchers say they've found a substance that could prevent the development of hormone-dependent breast cancer and halt the growth of estrogen-driven tumors -- pomegranate fruit.
Pomegranates contain phytochemicals known as ellagitannins that work much like aromatase inhibitors, according to results of a study just published in the January issue of Cancer Prevention Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. And there's little reason to think any cancer treatment derived from pomegranates would have harmful side effects because the fruit has long been safely consumed as a food.
Shiuan Chen, Ph.D., director of the Division of Tumor Cell Biology and co-leader of the Breast Cancer Research Program at City of Hope in Duarte, California, worked with Lynn Adams, Ph.D., a research fellow at Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, and other scientists to investigate whether phytochemicals in pomegranates can suppress aromatase and thereby inhibit cancer growth. They screened and analyzed 10 ellagitannin-derived compounds in pomegranates. The results? The research team discovered these natural phytochemicals have the potential to prevent estrogen-dependent breast cancers. One particular substance found in pomegranates dubbed Urolithin B significantly inhibited the growth of cultured breast cancer cells in the lab.
"Phytochemicals suppress estrogen production and that prevents the proliferation of breast cancer cells and the growth of estrogen-responsive tumors," said Dr. Chen, the principal investigator, in a statement to the media.
Gary Stoner, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at Ohio State University, commented in a statement to the media that additional studies are needed in animals and humans to confirm the ability of Urolithin B to stop hormone-dependent breast cancer. Dr. Stoner, who was not part of the study research team, also recommended additional studies to test pomegranate juice for its effect on estrogen levels, menopausal symptoms and breast density (dense breast tissue is a risk for breast cancer) and to see if it is a cancer preventive agent.
Until then, Stoner said people "might consider consuming more pomegranates to protect against cancer development in the breast and perhaps in other tissues and organs."
For more information:
http://www.aacr.org/home/public--me...
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/br...
Friday, January 8, 2010
Scientists discover how Cordyceps mushrooms fight cancer
(NaturalNews) For thousands of years, the mushroom known as Cordyceps has been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat problems ranging from coughs and fatigue to impotence and cancer. And once Western scientists started considering that anecdotal reports of the mushroom's curative powers might be something more than "folk tales", research started accumulating that backs up many ancient claims about Cordyceps' health benefits. For example, scientists from the University of Nottingham in Great Britain say they've documented how Cordiceps can fight cancer -- and the new discovery could increase the effectiveness of mushroom-derived cancer treatments.
For the study, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Dr. Cornelia de Moor of the University of Nottingham and her colleagues investigated a drug called cordycepin, which was originally extracted from wild growing Cordyceps and is now prepared from a cultivated form of the mushroom.
"Because of technical obstacles and people moving on to other subjects, it's taken a long time to figure out exactly how cordycepin works on cells. With this knowledge, it will be possible to predict what types of cancers might be sensitive and what other cancer drugs it may effectively combine with. It could also lay the groundwork for the design of new cancer drugs that work on the same principle," Dr. de Moor said in a statement to the media.
The University of Nottingham scientists found that the Cordyceps-derived treatment has two important effects on cells that could impact the growth of malignant tumors. At low doses, cordycepin inhibits the uncontrolled growth and division of cells while at high doses it prevents cells from sticking together, essentially blocking the cells from growing.
The research team concluded that each of these effects most likely is the result of a single underlying mechanism -- cordycepin interferes with how cells make proteins. Specifically, low doses of the mushroom-derived treatment interfere with the production of mRNA (the molecule that directs cells to assemble a protein) and at higher doses cordycepin directly interacts with the making of proteins.
"Our discovery will open up the possibility of investigating the range of different cancers that could be treated with cordycepin," Dr de Moor stated. "We have also developed a very effective method that can be used to test new, more efficient or more stable versions of the drug in the Petri dish.This is a great advantage as it will allow us to rule out any non-runners before anyone considers testing them in animals."
Although various medical therapies currently exist that attempt to stop the growth of cancerous metastatic tumors, they have little effect -- so this makes the Dalhousie University research into Cordyceps very important. The Canadian researchers stated the evidence they have so far suggests that the mushroom reduces the growth of metastases due to Cordyceps' effects on the tumors' cell cycles.
For more information:
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/releas...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
For the study, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Dr. Cornelia de Moor of the University of Nottingham and her colleagues investigated a drug called cordycepin, which was originally extracted from wild growing Cordyceps and is now prepared from a cultivated form of the mushroom.
"Because of technical obstacles and people moving on to other subjects, it's taken a long time to figure out exactly how cordycepin works on cells. With this knowledge, it will be possible to predict what types of cancers might be sensitive and what other cancer drugs it may effectively combine with. It could also lay the groundwork for the design of new cancer drugs that work on the same principle," Dr. de Moor said in a statement to the media.
The University of Nottingham scientists found that the Cordyceps-derived treatment has two important effects on cells that could impact the growth of malignant tumors. At low doses, cordycepin inhibits the uncontrolled growth and division of cells while at high doses it prevents cells from sticking together, essentially blocking the cells from growing.
The research team concluded that each of these effects most likely is the result of a single underlying mechanism -- cordycepin interferes with how cells make proteins. Specifically, low doses of the mushroom-derived treatment interfere with the production of mRNA (the molecule that directs cells to assemble a protein) and at higher doses cordycepin directly interacts with the making of proteins.
"Our discovery will open up the possibility of investigating the range of different cancers that could be treated with cordycepin," Dr de Moor stated. "We have also developed a very effective method that can be used to test new, more efficient or more stable versions of the drug in the Petri dish.This is a great advantage as it will allow us to rule out any non-runners before anyone considers testing them in animals."
More Cordyceps news
Scientists at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, published research in the November 30th edition of the journal Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy showing that oral Cordyceps can reduce the occurrence of cancer spreading to the lungs in metastatic breast cancer. Although the researchers found that Cordyceps does not reduce the growth of the primary breast tumor, they noted that deaths from breast cancer are primarily due to the development of metastases. That means a treatment that stops the spread of metastatic tumors could save countless lives.Although various medical therapies currently exist that attempt to stop the growth of cancerous metastatic tumors, they have little effect -- so this makes the Dalhousie University research into Cordyceps very important. The Canadian researchers stated the evidence they have so far suggests that the mushroom reduces the growth of metastases due to Cordyceps' effects on the tumors' cell cycles.
For more information:
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/releas...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Scientists find turmeric and black pepper spices may prevent breast cancer
(NaturalNews) Seasoning food with turmeric and black pepper can do more than just spice up a meal. Researchers at the University of Michigan (U-M) Comprehensive Cancer Center have found that the compounds curcumin, which is derived from turmeric, and piperine, derived from black pepper, could play an important role in preventing and even treating breast cancer.
Previous research has already provided evidence that curcumin and piperine may be potential cancer treatments. However, the new U-M study, just published online in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, is the first to suggest exactly how these natural spice compounds could prevent cancer. The research shows curcumin and piperine target stem cells (unspecialized cells that can give rise to any type of cell in an organ). This is of major significance because cancer stem cells comprise the small number of cells inside a tumor that fuel the growth of malignancies.
Current chemotherapy agents are useless against these cells -- that's why cancer can recur and spread despite rounds of heavy duty, toxic chemo. But if cancer stem cells could be eliminated and/or their growth shut down, cancer should be controlled.
"If we can limit the number of stem cells, we can limit the number of cells with potential to form tumors," lead author Madhuri Kakarala, M.D., Ph.D., a clinical lecturer in internal medicine at the U-M Medical School and a research investigator at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, said in a statement to the media. And the new study shows curcumin and piperine work along these lines. The spice derivatives are able to do what chemo can't -- they limit the self-renewal of stem cells.
The result? Piperine enhanced the effects of curcumin and the compounds interrupted the self-renewal process that is the hallmark of stem cells which initiate cancer. More good news: the compounds had no effect on the normal process of cell development known as cell differentiation. That means the spice compounds are not toxic to normal breast tissue.
"Women at high risk of breast cancer right now can choose to take the drugs tamoxifen or raloxifene for prevention, but most women won't take these drugs because there is too much toxicity. The concept that dietary compounds can help is attractive, and curcumin and piperine appear to have very low toxicity," Dr. Kakarala stated.
In addition, tamoxifen and raloxifene are designed to target estrogen. But not all breast cancers are estrogen driven. In fact, the most aggressive and deadly forms of breast cancer that are more likely to occur in women with strong family histories of the disease or with a specific genetic susceptibility to breast cancer are typically not affected by estrogen and tend to be difficult to treat. But due to the fact curcumin and piperine limit the self-renewal of stem cells, the spice compounds could impact malignancies whether they are estrogen sensitive or not.
Dr. Kakarala and colleagues are moving forward on an initial Phase 1 clinical trial in people to determine the best tolerated dose of curcumin and piperine. The study is expected to start signing on volunteer research subjects in spring of 2010.
For more information:
http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/medi...
Previous research has already provided evidence that curcumin and piperine may be potential cancer treatments. However, the new U-M study, just published online in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, is the first to suggest exactly how these natural spice compounds could prevent cancer. The research shows curcumin and piperine target stem cells (unspecialized cells that can give rise to any type of cell in an organ). This is of major significance because cancer stem cells comprise the small number of cells inside a tumor that fuel the growth of malignancies.
Current chemotherapy agents are useless against these cells -- that's why cancer can recur and spread despite rounds of heavy duty, toxic chemo. But if cancer stem cells could be eliminated and/or their growth shut down, cancer should be controlled.
"If we can limit the number of stem cells, we can limit the number of cells with potential to form tumors," lead author Madhuri Kakarala, M.D., Ph.D., a clinical lecturer in internal medicine at the U-M Medical School and a research investigator at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, said in a statement to the media. And the new study shows curcumin and piperine work along these lines. The spice derivatives are able to do what chemo can't -- they limit the self-renewal of stem cells.
Killing cancer cells with zero toxicity to healthy cells
For the U-M study, the research team applied a solution of curcumin and piperine to cell cultures at the equivalent of about 20 times the potency of what a person would take in through diet. Then a series of tests were performed on the cells to look at markers for breast stem cells and the effect curcumin and piperine had on the levels of stem cells.The result? Piperine enhanced the effects of curcumin and the compounds interrupted the self-renewal process that is the hallmark of stem cells which initiate cancer. More good news: the compounds had no effect on the normal process of cell development known as cell differentiation. That means the spice compounds are not toxic to normal breast tissue.
"Women at high risk of breast cancer right now can choose to take the drugs tamoxifen or raloxifene for prevention, but most women won't take these drugs because there is too much toxicity. The concept that dietary compounds can help is attractive, and curcumin and piperine appear to have very low toxicity," Dr. Kakarala stated.
In addition, tamoxifen and raloxifene are designed to target estrogen. But not all breast cancers are estrogen driven. In fact, the most aggressive and deadly forms of breast cancer that are more likely to occur in women with strong family histories of the disease or with a specific genetic susceptibility to breast cancer are typically not affected by estrogen and tend to be difficult to treat. But due to the fact curcumin and piperine limit the self-renewal of stem cells, the spice compounds could impact malignancies whether they are estrogen sensitive or not.
Dr. Kakarala and colleagues are moving forward on an initial Phase 1 clinical trial in people to determine the best tolerated dose of curcumin and piperine. The study is expected to start signing on volunteer research subjects in spring of 2010.
For more information:
http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/medi...
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Nearly 100 percent of women reject tamoxifen drug despite claims that it prevents breast cancer
(NaturalNews) A study published in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment has found that women overwhelmingly reject the breast cancer prevention drug tamoxifen even when given a thorough, personalized analysis of its risks and benefits. University of Michigan researchers administered the information about the drug to 632 women and found that only one percent of participants actually ended up taking it.
Originally formulated to prevent recurrences in women who have already had breast cancer, tamoxifen is now being touted as a breast cancer prevention drug.
The women who participated in the study were given detailed information about how the drug would work for them based on a number of personalized factors. These included medical and family history, age, and race. After completion, only 29 percent of women said they would research the drug further. A mere six percent said they were likely to actually take tamoxifen.
Following the study, of the 29 percent who said they would seek out more information about tamoxifen, only six percent actually did. Among those who said they were likely to take it, a measly one percent followed through.
Eighty-percent of the women who participated in the study indicated that they were most concerned about the side effects of the drug, which include sexual problems, hot flashes, blood clots, cataracts, and endometrial cancer. Despite concern among some that women are not taking the drug because they don't know about it, Dr. Peter Ubel from the University of Michigan noted that the real reason women are not taking tamoxifen is because of the many dangers associated with it.
This is why the cancer industry works so hard to keep women ignorant by distancing them from accurate information about the dangers of chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and anti-cancer drugs. The more women know about these things, the more they reject conventional cancer treatments altogether (and the more they seek out alternative therapies).
Alternative (natural) therapies are non-toxic, safe, affordable and highly effective at both preventing and treating cancer.
Sources for this story include:
http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/medi...
Originally formulated to prevent recurrences in women who have already had breast cancer, tamoxifen is now being touted as a breast cancer prevention drug.
The women who participated in the study were given detailed information about how the drug would work for them based on a number of personalized factors. These included medical and family history, age, and race. After completion, only 29 percent of women said they would research the drug further. A mere six percent said they were likely to actually take tamoxifen.
Following the study, of the 29 percent who said they would seek out more information about tamoxifen, only six percent actually did. Among those who said they were likely to take it, a measly one percent followed through.
Eighty-percent of the women who participated in the study indicated that they were most concerned about the side effects of the drug, which include sexual problems, hot flashes, blood clots, cataracts, and endometrial cancer. Despite concern among some that women are not taking the drug because they don't know about it, Dr. Peter Ubel from the University of Michigan noted that the real reason women are not taking tamoxifen is because of the many dangers associated with it.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
This is a fascinating study because it shows that when women are properly informed about the dangers of cancer drugs, they almost universally reject them.This is why the cancer industry works so hard to keep women ignorant by distancing them from accurate information about the dangers of chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and anti-cancer drugs. The more women know about these things, the more they reject conventional cancer treatments altogether (and the more they seek out alternative therapies).
Alternative (natural) therapies are non-toxic, safe, affordable and highly effective at both preventing and treating cancer.
Sources for this story include:
http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/medi...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
