Chronic lymphocytic leukemia breakthrough: green tea extract halts cancer progression in majority of patients

(NaturalNews) According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a form of cancer that causes the number of white blood cells called B lymphocytes, or B cells, to increase abnormally. Eventually, the cancerous cells can move through the blood to the liver, spleen, and other organs. When CLL spreads, it is usually treated with an arsenal of side effect-laden chemotherapies. But new research has revealed a natural substance -- an extract of green tea -- may have the ability to put the brakes on CLL.

Mayo Clinic researchers recently announced these findings in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In a phase II clinical trial, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), the major component of green tea, halted the progression in the majority of CLL patients.

The research is the latest in a series of Mayo studies that shows EGCG appears to have a powerful yet non-toxic impact on CLL. About eight years ago, Mayo scientists first tested EGCG in the lab and documented it reduced the survival of CLL cells. This was followed by a successful phase I clinical trial, published last May in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, that showed the leukemia cell count was not only reduced in one-third of the study participants, but a majority of patients in the trial with enlarged lymph nodes due to CLL saw a 50 percent or greater reduction in their lymph node size.

The latest phase II clinical trial involved 41 CLL patients who received EGCG and the results were even more dramatic. The majority, 69 percent, of the research subjects had a positive biological response to EGCG -- including a 20 percent or greater sustained reduction in blood lymphocyte count and/or a 50 percent or greater reduction in lymph node size.

Overall, the treatment was well tolerated with only very mild side effects in most patients. According to Tait Shanafelt, M.D., a Mayo Clinic hematologist who headed study, the results show EGCC "may be useful for stabilizing this form of leukemia, potentially slowing it down."

"These studies advance the notion that a nutraceutical like EGCG can and should be studied as cancer preventives," Neil Kay, M.D. a hematology researcher whose laboratory first tested the green tea extract in leukemic blood cells from CLL patients, said in the statement to the press. "Using nontoxic chemicals to push back cancer growth to delay the need for toxic therapies is a worthy goal in oncology research -- particularly for forms of cancer initially managed by observation such as CLL."

For more information:
http://abstract.asco.org/AbstView_7...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/...

Childhood cancer survivors have 10 times greater risk of heart disease (because radiation damages the heart!)

(NaturalNews) Survivors of childhood cancers are nearly 10 times more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease as adults than people who did not have cancer as children, according to a study conducted by researchers from Emory University and published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Researchers remain unsure of the exact reason for the increased risk, but the effects of radiation therapy appear to play a significant role.

"Mechanistically, we are not yet sure why this is, but the association is definitely there," said researcher Lillian R. Meacham.

Using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, researchers compared data from 8,599 cancer survivors with data from 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings.

They found that cancer survivors had a 60 percent higher chance of being on cholesterol medicine, a 70 percent higher chance of suffering from diabetes and nearly a 100 percent higher chance of being on blood pressure drugs. They were no more likely that their siblings to suffer from obesity, however, suggesting that something more than lifestyle factors are at play.

"These risk factors are manifesting at about age 32, which is much younger than a non-cancer survivor would exhibit signs of cardiovascular risk factors," Meacham said. "Some have suggested that when you are a cancer survivor there are parts of you that wear out early, so we need to be vigilant about our follow-up of these patients in order to find these late effects early and intervene."

Physical activity increased a cancer survivor's risk of suffering more than one symptom by 70 percent compared with cancer free siblings. Being older when the study was conducted increased survivor's risk by 8.2 times compared with their siblings.

Radiation therapy was also strongly associated with cardiovascular risk, with those who had undergone chest and abdomen radiation suffering from 2.2 times the risk of cardiovascular risk factor clustering as those who had not undergone the therapy. Total-body radiation increased the risk by 5.5 times.

Sources for this story include: www.businessweek.com; www.sciencedaily.com; www.telegraph.co.uk.

FDA Finally Admits That Drugs for Crohn's Disease and Arthritis May Promote Cancer

(NaturalNews) The FDA has ordered makers of drugs for a variety of inflammatory diseases to add a "black box warning" about an increased risk of cancer in children and adolescents.

A black box warning is the most severe warning that the FDA can place on a product without withdrawing it from the market.

The FDA began analyzing the drugs, known as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers, when reports emerged that dozens of children had developed cancer while taking the drugs. TNF blockers are used to treat inflammatory and autoimmune diseases such as Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis. They include adalimumab (marketed as Humira), certolizumab pegol (marketed as Cimzia), etanercept (marketed as Enbrel), golimumab (marketed as Simponi) and infliximab (marketed as Remicade.

"FDA announced that it has completed its analysis of TNF blockers and has concluded that there is an increased risk of lymphoma and other cancers associated with the use of these drugs in children and adolescents," spokesperson Crystal Rice said . "This new safety information is now being added to the boxed warning for these products."

The drugs already carry warnings about the risk of fungal infections and other side effects.

Since people with the inflammatory diseases that TNF blockers treat are already at an increased risk of cancer, those who take the drugs are at particularly high risk.

"It's good to have this information out there," said Patience White of the Arthritis Foundation. "It gives people with arthritis an opportunity to go to their doctor and talk about the risk/benefits."

The FDA advises all patients currently taking TNF blockers that the drugs may increase their risk of lymphoma, leukemia and other cancers; may worsen pre-psoriasis; and may increase the risk of psoriasis. Such patients should watch for cancer warning signs such as swollen lymph nodes in the neck, underarms or groin; unexpected weight loss or fatigue; or easy bruising or bleeding. Any such symptoms should be discussed with a doctor. Patients should not stop or change prescription drugs without consulting a physician first.

Sources for this story include: health.usnews.com.

Charlotte Gerson, Howard Straus join NaturalNews Talk Hour to reveal ways to defeat cancer

(NaturalNews) This week's NaturalNews Talk Hour presents Charlotte Gerson and Howard Straus "Defeat Cancer -- How to Promote True Healing". What causes cancer? Why haven't we found a cure yet? And, most importantly, how can we prevent, even reverse the damage created by degenerative dis-eases. Charlotte and Howard will reveal how to promote true healing within our body. Our show begins this Thursday evening at 6pm Pacific / 9pm Eastern, and registration is FREE. Simply enter your email address in the registration form on the right column of this page and you'll receive call-in details for the teleconference.

The Talk Hour is one of the highlights of our week. It's extremely informative and important for everyone's well being. Thank you Jonathan! - Betty and Lenny T.

What Causes Cancer?
According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), "Some kinds of cancer are caused by things people do." The ACS suggests that smoking and drinking alcohol may be the cause... especially if an individual does both activities. In addition, the ACS says, "Radiation (x-rays) can cause cancer. But the x-rays used by the doctor or dentist are safe." Now that statement would be funny if it were used by a comedian. Finally, they warn us about "too much exposure to sunlight" and "certain DNA changes" ...but not one word is mentioned about nutrition. Why?
What are our treatment options?

Again, according to the American Cancer Society, the top 3 choices are chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Clearly, these options don't work well for most cancer patients. Complementary and alternative therapies are discouraged by conventional medicine. In fact, their success is often discredited as "coincidental". Gee, I wonder why? What are the priorities of conventional medicine? Now, more than ever, we need to demand PROOF and EVIDENCE from our healthcare professionals before making an informed decision about what's best for us.

Jonathan Landsman, Host of the Talk Hour says, "For many years, Charlotte and Howard have been educating and supporting thousands of individuals looking for an alternative to the conventional healthcare system. All of us have the power to heal ourselves. This is an exciting opportunity to have YOUR questions answered by two of the greatest leaders in natural health – I can hardly wait!"

This week's guest: Charlotte Gerson and Howard Straus

Charlotte Gerson and Howard Straus - "Defeat Cancer – How to Promote True Healing" Thu. June 3rd

Charlotte Gerson, is the author of Healing the Gerson Way – Defeating Cancer and Other Chronic Diseases and daughter of the great physician Max Gerson. After her father's death, she continued to publish his last book, A Cancer Therapy - Results of 50 Cases and started to lecture on the Gerson Therapy. For the past 35 years, she has lectured worldwide in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Europe and Australia.

Howard Straus is the grandson of Max Gerson and author of Dr. Max Gerson: Healing the Hopeless. Howard will share his years of experience in helping people deal with serious illnesses. He is a shining example of how to live a healthy, vibrant and happy life and will inspire YOU to take better care of yourself.

The Gerson Institute is a non-profit organization located in San Diego, California, dedicated to the alternative, non-toxic treatment of disease, using the Gerson Therapy.
The Gerson Therapy is a safe, natural treatment developed by Dr. Max Gerson in the 1920's. This powerful therapy encourages the body to heal itself. Over the past 60 years, thousands of people have used the Gerson Therapy to recover from so-called "incurable" diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and arthritis.

Ask YOUR Questions! This is a rare opportunity to have YOUR questions answered by two of the greatest leaders in natural health. We'll have a special "Q & A session" after the show exclusively for our live audience. Space is limited. Be sure to call a few minutes early to reserve your spot on the show. Register now using the email form in the right column, and you will be emailed show details. Register Now!

Study reveals huge overdiagnosis of cancer causing unnecessary treatment and suffering

(NaturalNews) Imagine being told your imaging tests are back and there's bad news. You have cancer. To save your life, your doctor says, you must submit to surgery, chemo, radiation and a host of additional tests and prescription drugs. Of course, there's no guarantee the malignancy will be totally stopped or that the cancer treatment won't cause both immediate and long-term health consequences.

Now imagine the same scenario -- only it turns out the tests were misinterpreted and you really didn't have any sort of life-threatening cancer in the first place. This goof-up must be extremely rare, right? After all, in the high tech world of modern day mainstream medicine, dangerous malignant tumors are accurately spotted, correct?

Wrong.

In fact, research just published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests the overdiagnosis of cancer is nothing less than a large and growing problem in the US. Study authors H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., and William Black, M.D., of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont, and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, conclude it's time for this phenomenon to be faced head-on with the development of clinical and research strategies to quantify, recognize, and deal with cancer overdiagnosis.

So just how big a problem are we talking about? Dr. Welch and Dr. Black used data from large randomized screening trials to estimate the extent of overdiagnosis and their findings are nothing less that shocking. They found that about 25% of breast cancers detected on mammograms and about 60% of prostate cancers detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests could represent overdiagnosis..

And when it comes to lung cancer screening with chest x-rays and sputum tests, they estimate about half of the "cancers" detected are really cases of overdiagnosis. What's more, CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) often detects abnormalities outside the colon that can lead to more tests and a possible overdiagnosis of colon cancer, too.

The researchers pointed out several ways to address the problem of overdiagnosis. For starters, they suggested educating patients about the risks and benefits involved with early detection. Another strategy: raising the threshold at which screening test results are labeled 'abnormal' and treatment is needed.

This is already happening in some cases. For example, so many small lung nodules are detected on CT scans that it is now becoming more common for physicians to ignore many of these small abnormalities as just that -- small abnormalities -- instead of rushing into this-looks-like-cancer-let's-treat-it-aggressively mode.

In an editorial accompanying the report by Dr. Black and Dr. Welch, Laura Esserman, M.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, and Ian Thompson of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, agreed that addressing the problem of cancer overdiagnosis is critically important.

"What we need now in the field of cancer is the coming together of physicians and scientists of all disciplines to reduce the burden of cancer death AND cancer diagnosis," they wrote. "We must advocate for and demand innovation in diagnosis and management, fueled by science, harnessing modeling, molecular, and immunology tools to address this problem."

NaturalNews has previously reported on research into cancer overdiagnosis, which is particularly rampant with prostate cancer. In fact, PSA testing has resulted in over a million additional men being overdiagnosed with prostate cancer and subjected to treatment they didn't need (http://www.naturalnews.com/027193_c...).

For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

Processed meat raises risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer

(NaturalNews) A new study published in the journal Circulation reveals that eating processed meat products significantly raises the risk of heart disease and diabetes. Previous research has linked processed meats to cancer as well.

The new paper involved a meta-analysis of 20 different studies covering more than one million people from 10 different countries. The study found that eating just 2 ounces of processed meat each day resulted in the following:

• A 42 percent increase in the risk of heart disease.

• A 19 percent increase in the risk of diabetes.

Interestingly, the analysis simultaneously found that eating non-processed meats was not linked to these increases in disease risk. The study authors concluded that it was the processed salt and chemical additives in the processed meat that caused increase risk of disease.

Why sodium nitrite is poison

What the study authors did not come right out and say is that sodium nitrite is a poison, yet it's added to virtually all processed meats as a "color fixer." It makes dead gray meat look fleshy red, in other words, and it's added to bacon, sausage, hot dogs, pepperoni and most other processed meats. It's listed right on the label under the "ingredients" section.

I've been warning readers about sodium nitrite for seven years, and in that time, evidence has shown the chemical to cause:

• A 67% increase in pancreatic cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/007024_G...)

• A 74% higher risk of leukemia (http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000...)

• A 40% higher risk of diabetes (http://www.naturalnews.com/027636_p...)

The USDA actually tried to ban sodium nitrite from the food supply back in the 1970's, but it was overruled by the meat industry which knew that the chemical made meat look visually more appealing and therefore increased sales of processed meat products. Despite causing cancer, sodium nitrite has remained legal in the food supply to this day.

See the Counterthink Cartoon: "Hickory Harms" at http://www.naturalnews.com/022286.html

How many children are dying from processed meat?

Mainstream children eat a huge quantity of processed meat products, including hot dogs, sandwich meat, bacon, sausage and beef jerky. All those products are made with sodium nitrite.

How many children are dying of cancer each year from this toxic chemical in the food supply? The USDA doesn't want to know and the FDA doesn't seem to care. Sodium nitrite sells more meat, and food regulators apparently have no interest in the actual safety of the food supply. As long as food products are dead, the FDA considers them "safe" even if they're contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals like sodium nitrite.

I find it deplorable that the FDA is trying to outlaw raw milk but is fine to let American children continue dying from eating cancer-causing processed meats laced with sodium nitrite. It sort of tells you where the real priorities are in Washington, doesn't it?

Ignorant consumers eat processed meat

While people are dying of cancer, heart disease and diabetes from the chemical additives intentionally put into processed meat products, those consumers who are aware of the truth about sodium nitrite are avoiding all processed meats made with sodium nitrite (look for it on the label).

Only those consumers who are ignorant of the true health risks are still buying (and eating) bacon, sausage, beef jerky and other processed meat products. Basically, we're talking about the processed food crowd, which includes low-income families, teenagers, low-IQ individuals who are unable to grasp basic health concepts and mainstream physicians who have yet to accept any link between foods and health.

Sources for this story include:
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8...

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/WorldNews/...

New research: vitamin K protects against non-Hodgkin lymphoma

(NaturalNews) Non-Hodgkin lymphomas belong to a large group of immune system cancers involving lymphocytes (white blood cells). In 2009, according the National Cancer Institute (NCI) about 65,980 Americans were diagnosed with this form of cancer and almost 20,000 died from the disease. But now scientists at the Mayo Comprehensive Cancer Center in Minnesota think they've found a way to prevent a huge number of these malignancies. The key is a nutrient found in many leafy, green vegetables -- vitamin K.

For their study, the first ever to investigate vitamin K and non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk, the Mayo researchers enrolled 603 patients who were newly diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma as well as 1,007 matched cancer-free research subjects who served as controls. The participants answered a food questionnaire about their usual intake of over 120 food items during the two years before they were diagnosed with cancer or they enrolled in the study as a member of the cancer-free control group. They were also asked about their use of vitamin and mineral supplements.

The findings of the study, which were recently announced in Washington, D.C., at the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), showed that the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma was slashed dramatically -- by 45 percent -- for the study participants who had the highest vitamin K levels compared to participants with the lowest levels of the vitamin. This association remained even after the Mayo research team investigated factors such as age, sex, education, obesity, smoking, alcohol use and consumption of foods with high amounts of antioxidants.

Vitamin K is a fat-soluble vitamin found in certain plants or formed by bacterial synthesis. The Mayo study involved intake of the plant form of vitamin K from diet and/or supplement use. The most common food sources of vitamin K include leaf lettuce and spinach, with smaller amounts found in other vegetables such as onions, bell peppers, asparagus and alfalfa sprouts and some fruits, including strawberries.

Consuming a lot of vitamin K was associated with a lower risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma whether the vitamin came from natural food sources or from supplements. However, very high intakes of vitamin K from supplements did not cause a further reduction in risk.

"These results are provocative, since they are the first work we have done on the connection between vitamin K and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and this is a fairly strong protective effect," the study's lead investigator, cancer epidemiologist James Cerhan, M.D., Ph.D., said in a media statement. "Whether the protective effect we observed is due to vitamin K intake, or some other dietary or lifestyle exposure, cannot be definitely assessed in this study. But these findings add to a lot of other data that support a diet that includes plenty of green leafy vegetables in order to prevent many cancers as well as other diseases."

Well-known as essential for blood clotting (the name of the vitamin is derived from the German word "Koagulations"), vitamin K has also been found in recent years to be important for other functions in the body, including putting a damper on inflammation and regulating cell growth -- and this might explain its apparent ability to protect from non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

For more information:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2010-...
http://www.nutrientreference.com/vi...

Doritos ads represent sick, demented nature of junk food companies and their products

(NaturalNews) Junk food advertising has reached a new low with the recent Doritos "Crash the Super Bowl" ads which portray Doritos consumers as violent murderers who will kill fellow human beings to get a bag of Doritos.

One Doritos ad portrays a man backing out of a parking lot when his car strikes an innocent person who drops a bag of Doritos and falls to the ground behind the car. Rather than trying to help the innocent victim, this man throws his car into reverse and drives over the victim, killing him with the vehicle and stealing the bag of Doritos.

The message? Doritos are so valuable that it's okay to kill people just to score a bag. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_D...)

A second Doritos ad shows two loser-looking gym bums being attacked by an insane junk food ninja who uses Doritos chips as throwing stars to murder the guy who stole his bag of Doritos. The message here? Doritos are so valuable that it's okay to kill others to defend your snack. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bRS...)

A third Doritos ad shows one elderly man attacking a young man with a stun gun in order to buy the last bag of Doritos from a vending machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4YN...). Same gratuitous violence. Same message: Committing violent acts against others is perfectly acceptable when you're pursuing a bag of Doritos.

Yet another Doritos ad shows two grown men smacking each other in the face to decide which loser has to go buy more Doritos. The loser ends up with a black eye after being punched so hard he flies through the air and lands on a coffee table, shattering it. Gee, why not just use the women in this role and make it a wife-beating commercial? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpRb...)

A common theme: Violence against innocent people

What's the common theme of all these Doritos television commercials? Acts of senseless violence committed against fellow human beings.

Doritos marketing executives apparently think these commercials showing gratuitous acts of violence and murder are going to help them sell more Doritos. Maybe they've been eating too much of their own product and their brain function has been suppressed by all the MSG found in Doritos... because these ads aren't funny, they're sick!

"Demented" might be a better term. It's hard to see the humor when there's so much realistic violence in the way. And yet somehow Frito-Lay executives gave these ads the big thumbs up. Let's use violence to sell junk foods!

It sort of makes sense, actually: Junk food consumption is correlated with violent crime. Virtually all the criminals in prison across the country are nutritionally imbalanced due to their consumption of processed junk foods and their lack of sufficient nutritional supplementation. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a study revealed that fried snack foods like Doritos are a favorite food among violent criminals. These are, after all, the kind of people depicted in some Doritos advertisements.

In my view, the violent Doritos commercials accurately reflect the senseless, violent behavior that typifies people (younger males, mostly) who consume large quantities of processed junk foods, sugary soft drinks and gimmicky "sports drinks." These are the people who end up being put on antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs, after which they sometimes end up in a school shooting rampage.

It might make a good Doritos commercial, actually: A kid grows up on junk food and diet soda laced with aspartame. He's drugged up on Ritalin and Prozac. One day he brings a semiautomatic rifle to school, barges into a classroom and opens fire on his classmates, shooting and screaming, "I WANT MY F*@!KING DORITOS!"

Hilarious, huh? Some people think so. The Frito-Lay executives apparently think this kind of violence is appropriate for mainstream television. This is the kind of imagery they're using to try to convince people to buy their products! How sick is that?

Ow, My Balls!

If you've ever seen the movie Idiocracy, you may remember the popular TV show being watched by the dumbed-down, brain-numbed junk food consumers who inhabit the world depicted in the film. That show was called, "Ow, My Balls!" and it consisted of random acts of violence against the testicles of the show host who is seen being kicked in the balls, falling on his balls, being hit in the balls by a wrecking crane and other similar acts. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021558.html)

This show is the single most popular broadcast in the world of Idiocracy. When this parody movie first came out, it seemed impossible to imagine a world full of people who were so stupid that they just sit around watching some guy get kicked in the balls over and over again... but guess what? Idiocracy has become reality! Doritos has achieved the distinction of being the first mainstream consumer product company to produce a series of advertisements that are intellectually equivalent to "Ow, My Balls!"

Doritos contain MSG

Doritos are, of course, a processed junk food made with mosodium glutamate -- a taste-enhancing chemical that experts like Dr. Russell Blaylock link to obesity, food addictions, headaches and neurological damage. MSG is an excitotoxin that's used along with huge amounts of processed salt to enhance the flavor of dead foods like Doritos.

Read more about the dangers of MSG here: http://www.naturalnews.com/msg.html

Being a fried snack food, Doritos also contain acrylamides -- toxic substances formed when carbohydrates are cooked a high temperatures. Acrylamides are linked to cancer and other serious diseases. (http://www.naturalnews.com/acrylami...)

One study shows that eating acrylamides increases the risk of kidney cancer by 59 percent (http://www.naturalnews.com/024585_c...).

PepsiCo, the parent company that makes Doritos, claims that its product isn't made with genetically modified corn, but tests conducted by GreenPeace proved that Doritos sold in India actually did contain GM corn varieties MON 863 and NK 603 (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/S...).

So eating a bag of Doritos involves not only the ingestion of MSG and cancer-causing acrylamides; it may also expose you to genetically modified corn that has been scientifically linked to internal organ damage. (See books by Jeffrey Smith for loads of research on that...)

So now all the violence actually starts to make sense: People who eat Doritos might be brain damaged from the chemicals in the product. And because they're brain damaged, they have lost the higher brain functions of critical thinking or expressing human compassion. They are operating from their lower "reptilian" brain stem functions which respond to two things: Sex and violence.

No wonder the Doritos ads are focused on sex and violence.

Choking on Hot Dogs? It's not the shape, it's the ingredients

(NaturalNews) The American Academy of Pediatrics is making headlines this week with a bizarre recommendation that hot dogs should be re-shaped to make them less of a choking hazard for children. But there's no mention of all the cancer-causing chemical ingredients that actually go into the hot dogs. Pediatric physicians are apparently more concerned about the shapethan the ingredients. And they apparently have no concern about the truth that hot dogs contain cancer-causing ingredients.

Hot dogs contain sodium nitrite, of course -- a cancer-causing ingredient that's been widely linked to pancreatic cancer and colorectal cancer. People who eat hot dogs and other processed meats have a 67% increased risk of pancreatic cancer(http://www.naturalnews.com/007024.html).

Processed meats no doubt contribute to a large number of childhood cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, over 1,500 children die each year in the United States from childhood cancer (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/...).

How many children actually die from choking on hot dogs, anyway? I'll bet you it's a fraction of the number of children who die from leukemia or brain cancer each year.

That the AAP would be so concerned about the shape of hot dogs while remaining silent about the health harm caused by hot dog ingredients isn't all that surprising, actually: These are physicians who often focus on treating children with yet more chemicals such as ADHD drugs, antibiotics and antidepressants. One such pediatrician just got arrested for sexually assaulting over one hundred children in his medical practice (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...).

Of course, that whacko doesn't represent all pediatricians. Most pediatric physicians are caring human beings who really want to help children. And that's where this advice about changing the shape of hot dogs comes from: These doctors genuinely want to prevent children from choking on these processed meat products.

So what should the new shape be... rectangular? Should hot dogs be made into long rectangle shapes so they resemble pink lumber? It would certainly prevent them from rolling out of the buns, wouldn't it?

Then again, we might have to redesign the buns, too. Square hot dogs, you see, don't fit right in round buns. So we'd have to recalibrate the entire chain of processed junk food just to prevent children from choking on the dogs.

Personally, I think we should engage a little truth in advertising and just mandate that hot dogs be reshaped into fleshy cancer tumors. That way, you really know what you're eating. If these dogs resembled the diseased animals they're sometimes made from, choking would no longer be a problem at all because no one would eat them in the first place!

Check out my mystery meat macrophotography to see actual pictures of hot dogs, salami and other processed meatsup close and personal: http://www.naturalnews.com/PhotoTou...

What's really in hot dogs

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 60 percent of all infant choking emergency room visits are caused by food. Another one-third are caused by non-food items such as coins, buttons and marbles, and 9 percent of choking incidents are caused by "undetermined" objects. As in, "What the heck does little Joey have in his mouth?"

If he's choking on a hot dog, then what he has in his mouth should be quite frightening: Ground-up bits of meat scraps gathered from thousands of different carcasses from animals that were pumped full of hormones, fed chicken litter as part of their diet, treated inhumanely and slaughtered in a highly fearful environment that releases even more "terror" hormones into the meat at the moment of death.

On top of all that, there are the chemical additive ingredients that cause cancer and other diseases. Here are the ingredients for Oscar Meyer hot dogs:

MECHANICALLY SEPARATED TURKEY, PORK, MECHANICALLY SEPARATED CHICKEN, WATER, CONTAINS LESS THAN 2% OF SALT, FLAVOR, SODIUM LACTATE, CORN SYRUP, DEXTROSE, SODIUM PHOSPHATES, SODIUM DIACETATE, SODIUM ASCORBATE, SODIUM NITRITE.

Yumm! Sodium nitrite and corn syrup! Just what every little boy needs to grow up big and strong (and diabetic). And you just gotta love "mechanically separated turkey," pork and chicken. This is a technical-sounding term for a process that used to be called "mechanically reclaimed meat" (MRM).

As described on Wikipedia:

"Mechanically recovered/reclaimed meat (MRM), is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing beef, pork, turkey or chicken bones, with attached edible meat, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. Mechanically separated meat has been used in certain meat and meat products since the late 1960s. This product can be contrasted with meat extracted by advanced meat recovery systems. The most common use of MSM is into hotdogs."

Did you know that spinal cords go into the MRM machines, too? Yumm... spinal cord juice! As Wikipedia explains:

"Concerns were raised ...when the BSE epidemic, otherwise known as Mad-Cow Disease, was discovered in the United Kingdom in 1986. Since bits of the spinal cord (the part most likely to be carrying BSE) often got mixed in with the rest of the meat; products using mechanically separated meat taken from the carcasses of bovines were at higher risk for transmitting BSE to humans." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechan...)

Today, however, mechanically-separated beef isn't allowed in hot dogs, but turkey, pork and chicken certainly is.

What's a little pig spine in your food, anyway? How about some bird brain? Or some turkey tendon juice?

Lick it up, suckers! If you're eating hot dogs, you're basically eating animal juice paste. MRM machines are essentiallyanimals juicers that extract protein paste from carcasses. Combined with a little corn syrup, sodium nitrite and other chemicals, you get hot dogs!

Are you choking yet?

If not, just view the mystery meat macrophotography here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/PhotoTou...

Sources for this story include
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst...

Cancers can re-seed themselves after chemo, surgery or radiation

(NaturalNews) Researchers from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York have published findings in the journal Cell that explain how tumor cells can re-seed and spread throughout the body after they have been removed through conventional chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation treatments. Tiny tumor cells that circulate throughout the body often begin to send out seeds to the places where the tumor originated, essentially planting the cancer back into the body.

Joan Massague and her colleagues at the Center are finding that conventional treatments leave behind malignant cells that relocate to other areas of the body to avoid being destroyed. Eventually they return as stronger and more aggressive tumors, having gathered back the worst leftover cells from the previous cancer. The result is a second cancer that is worse than the first.

Chemicals present in the immune system also appear to signal tumor cells in circulation to return to their source. Following conventional treatment, the immune system actually works against the body by drawing the vagrant cancer cells back to where they originally seeded, kick starting a relapse.

Medical professionals typically attribute recurrences of cancer following conventional treatment to a few remaining cells that survived treatment and remained at the source. However this study illustrates definitively that lingering cells hide throughout the body and later return to self seed back where they originally started.

What these findings illustrate is that conventional cancer treatments are not effective at eradicating cancer from the body. The targeting of a specific area with surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy cannot successfully remove the cancer from the body because its cells will find another place to live temporarily, only to return even stronger the next time.

Biopsies cause cancer to spread
A conventional biopsy is usually recommended as the best way to identify the presence of cancer, both before and after treatments. Needle biopsies involve taking tissue samples at various places in order to identify the presence of cancer cells. Official diagnosis of cancer cannot take place without a biopsy, resulting in the pressuring of patients to get one if they suspect a tumor.

Many doctors will insist that a person needs a biopsy, but the threat of spreading cancer far outweighs any perceived benefits. Those who receive biopsies will most likely experience unnecessary cancer spread and, following conventional treatment, will probably experience cancer reseeding. Cancer is known to develop at the puncture sites of biopsies.

Chemotherapy leads to reseeding
Chemotherapy treatments involve targeting cancer cells that are rapidly dividing and spreading with harsh chemicals designed to kill them. While treatment may kill the primary tumor, it fails to eradicate the cells that divide more slowly, resulting in a continued replication of cancer cells following treatment.

Many who believe they are in remission following their chemotherapy treatments later discover that their cancer has returned. Not only do they undergo the horrors of the treatment which leaves their body and health in shambles, but they often end up with a more severe version of their original cancer.

Conventional therapies are a failure
Conventional medicine is at a loss for how to deal with the problem of reseeding. Within their paradigm, chemotherapy, radiation, drugs, and surgery are the only options for treating someone with cancer. Now that these are proving to be largely ineffective, scientists are searching for yet another new drug to combat the tendency of cancers to re-seed in order to continue promoting these accepted forms of cancer treatment. They are even investigating the possibility of developing vaccines that will allegedly use the body's immune system to stop vagrant cancer cells.

The problem with drugs, surgery, and radiation is that they will never be able to systematically rid the body of the problem because they are only capable of targeting a confined area. These methods are also wrought with negative side effects so severe that many people end up dying simply from the treatment.

Conventional treatment is also extremely expensive, heavily burdening an already overwhelmed health care system. It is simply assumed that there are no alternative methods by which cancer can be treated, let alone prevented.

Many recently published studies have found that pomegranates, mangoes, and other natural foods contain valuable phytonutrients that effectively prevent and stop malignant cancer cells while preserving good cells. These nutrients holistically rid the body of harmful cells, targeting them wherever they hide in the body and eliminating them.

Conventional medicine would do best to begin focusing heavily on the compounds found in nature that are designed to deter cancer without inflicting negative side effects as an alternative to the mainstream methods that are only making the problem worse. Whether in aloe vera, peach pits, raw almonds, or the many fruits and vegetables found around the world, anti-cancer nutrients are everywhere and modern medicine is only beginning to recognize them. They may not result in the next big blockbuster drug but they work and they are inexpensive. Perhaps this is the reason they are generally marginalized and looked down upon by the cancer industry.

Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS... http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news...http://www.healingcancernaturally.c...

Smokeless tobacco products like snuff also cause cancer

(NaturalNews) A recent study published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology is urging tobacco manufacturers to reformulate a smokeless tobacco product called moist snuff. Researchers from Minnesota have found that the product contains high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are highly toxic, cancer-causing substances.

Used in between the lip and gum, moist snuff has grown in popularity over the years due to increased awareness about the dangers of smoking cigarettes. Commonly thought to be a safer alternative to cigarettes, moist snuff is turning out to have its own slew of dangers. The PAHs found in moist snuff can lead to various cancers including oral, pancreatic, and esophageal. Precancerous oral lesions are typically the first symptoms to appear.

Twenty-three moist snuff products, including samples from the most popular brands, were examined by Irina Stepanov and her team from the University of Minnesota. As many as 28 different PAHs were discovered in the samples, nine of which are known carcinogens. These included naphthalene and chrysene.

Prior to this recent study, trace amounts of only one PAH had ever been found in a smokeless tobacco product. For this reason, the smokeless tobacco products have been marketed as a safer alternative for tobacco users concerned about the toxic effects of cigarettes.

Study researchers hope that the tobacco industry will take action to eliminate these harmful substances from their products. Since many people falsely assume that smokeless tobacco products are safe alternatives to cigarettes, experts insist that findings should be taken seriously by product manufacturers.

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

The problem with becoming addicted to nicotine is that you always need another hit in some form, and as this report indicates, many people have switched to "smokeless" tobacco products to avoid the carcinogens found in cigarette smoke. But in doing so, they've subjected themselves a different profile of carcinogens found in snuff products.

The tobacco industry, of course, has always tried to bamboozle consumers by claiming their products are safe. Cigarettes, remember, were promoted by doctors who said they boost memory and improve your teeth! Big Tobacco has a long history of taking dangerous products and marketing them as safe or even healthy.

The bottom line for all consumers is to avoid processed tobacco products, as they are highly carcinogenic regardless of their form.

In my opinion, it's probably safer to just smoke natural, unprocessed tobacco leaf than to chew processed tobacco snuff. There's a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that the really harmful substances in tobacco are added (or altered) by the tobacco companies during manufacturing.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac...

Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer, Scientists Warn

(NaturalNews) A report issued by the International Electromagnetic Field Collaborative and endorsed by 43 scientists from 13 countries has reviewed the evidence linking cell phone use to brain tumors, and refuting the methodology of a forthcoming industry-funded study expected to give the phones a clean bill of health.

"I fear we will see a tsunami of brain tumors, although it is too early to see that now since the tumors have a 30-year latency," study author Lloyd Morgan said. "I pray I'm wrong, but brace yourself."

Among the research cited in the study was a recent study by a Swedish team of scientists that found a 420 percent higher risk of brain cancer among people who had started using cellular or cordless phones as teenagers. Older analog phones, which are now mostly off the market, had been found to increase cancer risk by 700 percent.

Because children are especially vulnerable to radiation, the report recommends that parents not allow their children under the age of 18 to use mobile phones except in emergencies, or to sleep with cellular phones under their pillows. It recommends using corded land lines whenever possible, and using cellular phones mostly as answering machines, turning them on only to check messages and return calls. Use of cell phones inside buildings or in cars increases cancer risk, as it increases the radiation a phone must emit to function. Use of text messages and non-wireless headsets can reduce cancer risk. The report also advises against carrying cell phones against the body, even in pockets.

"Some countries are already banning cell phones over health concerns, with France saying children in elementary schools can only use them for texting," Morgan said.

The report also sets out 11 flaws in the forthcoming Interphone study, a study on cell phones and health being prepared by the wireless industry in 13 different countries. These flaws include the exclusion of non-cellular cordless phones (which also emit radiation), children and young adults (the most vulnerable demographics) from the study, the exclusion of certain types of tumors, and the exclusion of participants who died or were too sick to answer questions.

Sources for this story include: www.pcworld.com.

Radiation Treatment for Cancer Causes Diabetes in Children

(NaturalNews) People who are undergo radiation therapy for childhood cancers are significantly more likely to develop diabetes as adults, according to a new study conducted by researchers from Emory University and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

A number of studies have found that radiation, chemotherapy, and other such treatments significantly shorten the lives of childhood cancer survivors.

"As a result of their curative therapies, childhood cancer survivors face an increased risk of morbidity and mortality," the researchers wrote. Nearly 75 percent of such children develop a chronic health condition within 30 years of diagnosis, while 42.4 percent develop severe, disabling or life-threatening health conditions. Because cardiovascular disease is a major killer of childhood cancer survivors, the researchers examined the effect of radiation treatment on the risk of diabetes, a major correlate of cardiovascular mortality.

The researchers examined diabetes rates in 8,599 people who had been diagnosed with cancer before the age of 21, between 1970 and 1986. These rates were compared with 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings, who were randomly selected. All participants were screened for diabetes in 2003.

After adjusting for other diabetes risk factors including age, body mass index, ethnicity, exercise, income, insurance and race, the researchers found that those who had undergone cancer treatment as children were 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as adults than their siblings were. Those who had been treated with abdominal radiation were 2.7 times more likely to have diabetes, while those who had been treated with whole-body radiation were a shocking 7.2 times more likely to be diabetic.

Risk increased with radiation dose used, and decreased with age at diagnosis. People diagnosed with cancer before the age of five had 2.4 times the diabetes risk as those diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 20.

A previous study found that childhood cancer survivors were five to 10 times more likely to suffer from heart disease than their cancer-free siblings, and significantly more likely to suffer from kidney disease.

Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.sciencedaily.com

Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA

(NaturalNews) In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA.

Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b...)

In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue.

The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."

In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health.

Never approved as safe for humans

"At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports TechnologyReview.com (http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...). "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe."

And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices."

(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)

The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."

In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.


(These images depict what the TSA sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays.)

Could these scans cause cancer and birth defects?

Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use.

How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we're told -- but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?

Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health -- a preposterous notion -- and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.

What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.

Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe?

What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?

As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)

"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation."

Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.

And here's the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can't detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won't be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are.

Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you're a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.

Radiology experts claim full-body scanners are safe

Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms are safe, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer.

When it comes to radiation safety, you can't trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don't have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!

As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty...)

"The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted.

'I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,' said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president."

The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...)

"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe."

NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.

Resources:

Physics Letters, January 8, 2010
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millim...

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...

Suzanne Somers speaks out against the conventional cancer industry: mammograms, chemotherapy vs. alternative cures

(NaturalNews) As the author of the New York Times bestseller, "Knockout: Interviews with doctors who are curing cancer," Suzanne Somers is making waves across the cancer industry. Her powerful, inspired message of informed hope is reaching millions of readers who are learning about the many safe, effective options for treating cancer that exist outside the realm of the conventional cancer industry (chemotherapy, surgery and radiation).

Recently, Suzanne Somers spoke with NaturalNews editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, to share the inspiration for her new book Knockout. "People are just starving for some new information... for other options, for hope in [treating] cancer," she explained.

The full interview with Suzanne Somers is available as a downloadable MP3 file from NaturalNews.com: http://naturalnews.com/Index-Podcas...

In it, Somers explains why she's so concerned about the current course of the cancer industry:

"In 2010, cancer will be the biggest killer in the world. I fear for everybody walking into the present cancer protocol. It's going to make billions and billions of dollars for the industry, which is already a $200 billion-a-year business. It's going to bankrupt families. It causes expensive deaths. It emaciates people and they die anyway. Why not look into the options that are offered in Knockout? Why not look into Dr. Burzynski out of Houston? Why not look into Dr. Gonzalez in New York or Dr. Forsythe out of Nevada? [They] have a different protocol that doesn't require harsh chemicals or degrading the body."

In the interview, Suzanne also explains the limitations of chemotherapy and why the cancer industry has failed the people:

"There are only three kinds of cancer that respond to chemotherapy: Testicular cancer, childhood leukemia, some lymphomas including Non-Hodgkin's," she says. "For all of us who have raised money marching, going to black-tie fundraisers, we've thrown billions and billions of dollars at pharmaceutical companies and the FDA to find a cure, and it has failed. They do not have a cure."

Mammograms causing more harm than good

In the NaturalNews interview, Somers also discusses the problems with mammograms. When asked for her thoughts on the US government's sudden change in position that now says women under 50 should never receive mammograms, Somers explained:

"I have information so shocking in Knockout about mammograms that I have been reluctant on television to even bring it up, because to say anything negative about mammograms is going against the gold standard. So I was thrilled when I saw this report yesterday. Nobody's saying the real truth [about the harm caused by mammograms]. They don't want to open Pandora's Box ...you mean a lot of the women who faithfully had mammograms got their cancer from mammograms?"

What's in the "Knockout" book

Suzanne Somers' book presents a collection of interviews from leading doctors who have developed and now apply natural cancer therapies to patients, producing outstanding results. To gather information for her book, Somers explains, "I called doctors, I interviewed their patients, I talked to hundreds of people, I interviewed science writers, PhDs, neuroscientists, nutritionists... even the scientific advisory board of Life Extension."

Common Pain Medication Fuels Cancer Growth

(NaturalNews) Painkillers known as opiates are widely used to treat both acute and chronic pain. Morphine, in particular, is often used to relieve the pain experienced by cancer patients. But now comes evidence from two new studies that strongly indicates opiate-based painkillers actually fuel the growth and spread of malignancies.

The research presented in Boston on November 18, 2009, at "Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics," a joint meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, the National Cancer Institute, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, advances the concept that opiate drugs are cancer promoters. The research also explains how protecting cancer cells from opiates may reduce cell proliferation, invasion and migration.

The concept that opiate drugs used to help cancer patients might be contributing to cancer recurrence developed about eight years ago from several unrelated clinical and laboratory studies. First, a 2002 palliative care study found patients who received spinal rather than systemic pain relief from opiate drugs lived longer. A short time later, Jonathan Moss, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Chicago, reported that several cancer patients receiving a selective opiate blocker called methylnaltrexone (MNTX) which was developed in the 1980s to treat opiate-induced constipation lived far longer than they were expected to. Other studies had similar results.

"These were patients with advanced cancer and a life expectancy of one to two months yet several lived for another five or six. It made us wonder whether this was just a consequence of better GI function or could there possibly be an effect on the tumors," Moss said in a press statement.

Patrick A. Singleton, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center, along with Moss, Joe G.N. Garcia, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and colleagues decided to investigate the many peripheral effects of opiates that might encourage cancer growth and the potential benefits of blocking those effects. In laboratory studies using both cell cultures and mice, the scientists found that morphine did directly rev up the proliferation of tumor cells. It also inhibited the immune response, and promoted angiogenesis (the growth of the blood vessels that help "feed" tumors and allow them to thrive). In the research just presented by Singleton and colleagues, they focused on the mu opiate receptor as a regulator of tumor growth and metastasis and they documented the ability of MNTX to block the cancer-promoting effects of opiates on this receptor.

Bottom line: it appears time for doctors and patients to consider all the side effects of opiate pain relievers, including the fact they may spur cancer to grow. Blocking the cancer-fueling ability of opiates and/or using them for as short a time as possible -- or not at all unless absolutely necessary -- appears to be the safest, and healthiest course of action.

For more information:
http://www.aacr.org/home/scientists...