Apr
29
2017

Cancer By Chance

A new theory talks about cancer by chance. In other words, it likely is mostly bad luck when cancer develops. Mathematician Cristian Tomasetti and cancer geneticist Bert Vogelstein of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland developed a new model of cancer development. They found that stem cells in different organ systems divide at different rates. The faster they go through cycles of cell divisions, the higher the chances of a mutation. The mutations happen in the genetic material and can lead to cancer. Dr. Vogelstein applied this model to 32 different cancer types and found the following.

  • 66% of cancers: cancer-promoting mutations develop by chance during cell division in various organs
  • 29% of cancers are due to environmental causes
  • 5% of cancers are inherited

Stem cells in organs can turn into cancer by chance

Key to the new theory of “cancer by chance” is that cancer likely is developing from stem cells in different organs. Different stem cells have different rates of stem cell divisions.

With respect to pancreatic cancer that 5% were due to genetic factors, 18% were from environmental factors (smoking) and 77% came from chance mutations. The Cancer Research UK database provided this data.

Environmental factors and random mutations in prostate cancer

For prostate cancer the rate of spontaneous mutations is 95%. From all of the cancer statistics it is clear that about 1/3 of cancers are due to either environmental or inherited factors, but 2/3 of all cancers are due to random mutations (“bad luck mutations”). They pointed out this fact in their first publication.

With the second publication, as mentioned in the beginning, Vogelstein and Tomasetti concentrated on 17 common cancers in 69 countries. They searched 423 international cancer databases. Again they found that the more stem cells divided in an organ, the more random mutations occurred. This caused cancers in that organ.

Cancer frequency related to stem cell divisions in organs

Here are a few examples for lifetime stem cell divisions:

  • Colon: 6,000 cell divisions in stem cells of the colon
  • Breast: 300 cell divisions in breast stem cells
  • Lung: only 6 cell divisions in lung stem cells

Colon cancer is very common because of the high stem cell division rate. But they also looked at environmental factors. For instance, lung cancer is rare in non-smokers because stem cells in lungs divide slowly. However, the carcinogens from cigarette smoke add a huge environmental risk. The end result: there is more lung cancer in smokers. Vogelstein said that with every stem cell division there is the creation of three new cell mutations because the body has a “poor copying machine”. During meiosis DNA breaks can occur that lead to mutations. Once they occurred, future cell divisions will maintain the copy.

Environmental factors versus cancer by chance

In the first paper the medical community was critical about how the authors had put too much emphasis on the finding that two third of cancer would occur randomly. So in the second paper Vogelstein and Tomasetti mentioned quite a bit how a change of the environment can change the final outcome of developing cancer.

This is also reflected in this summary from the CNN.

They mentioned that one mutation is not enough to cause cancer. You need three or four such mutations. As we get older there is a higher likelihood that we accumulate this number of mutations, and cancer can develop. But if we exercise, stop smoking and avoid red meat, this can contribute to a much healthier environment in the dividing stem cells. In this case we may not accumulate enough stem cell mutations in our lifetime to come down with cancer.

There is a problem with prostate cancer as indicated in this German summary of Vogelstein and Tomasetti’s work.

Xenoestrogens in the environment of the US

Japanese men have an extremely low rate of prostate cancer, namely 1/25th of the rate in the US. When Japanese men immigrate to the US, it does not take long before their risk is the same as that of US men. This is a classical case of the importance of environmental factors in cancer causation. Song Wu has pointed out in a publication in Nature that in his opinion Vogelstein and Tomasetti did not pay enough attention to extrinsic (environmental) factors in the causation of cancers.

This could explain the prostate cancer conundrum just mentioned. There may be more xenoestrogens in the environment in the US when compared to Japan, and this may have caused the additional prostate cancers when Japanese men moved to the US. Xenoestrogens are estrogen-like hormones in the environment, which can cause prostate cancer.

Prevention undermines “cancer by chance”

The role of prevention is likely larger than previously estimated. Now that we know that on average 2/3 of all cancers are due to chance mutations, it is important to realize that prevention and early detection play an enormous role.

Only stage 1 and 2 cancers tend to get cured

Most cancers are only curable in stage 1 and stage 2 out of 4 stages. And this is only the case when the surgeon removes the stem cell cancer mutations along with the clone of cancer cells.

For lung cancer: stop smoking!

In terms of reducing the risk for lung cancer this means to stop smoking.

Prevent colon cancer with colonoscopies

With colon cancer it means having regular colonoscopies to remove suspicious polyps.

Mapping biopsy and cryoablation therapy for prostate cancer

For prostate cancer it means to do a mapping biopsy and to do cryoablation therapy, which has a prostate cancer vaccination effect as well

Some cancers are more difficult to diagnose, but Oncoblot test may help

Not all cancers can be diagnosed early. Pancreatic cancer is such a difficult to diagnose cancer. But screening methods have been developed that are more sensitive and very specific such as the Oncoblot test.  With this test even cancer of the pancreas can be diagnosed years before it would be clinically detectable.

Avoiding inflammation avoids cancer

We do know that chronic inflammation can lead to cancer. It makes sense therefore to start with an anti-inflammatory diet like the Mediterranean diet. Fish oil is also anti-inflammatory.

Cancer prevention through regular exercise

Add to this regular exercise, as we know it reduces the risk for cancer development and strengthens your heart and lungs.

Vitamin D3 reduces cancer rates

Vitamin D3 can reduce cancer risks in both males and females. When vitamin D3 was given and blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were above 40 ng/ml, the breast cancer rate was reduced by 71% compared to a low vitamin D3 group. Similarly in men the prostate cancer rate dropped by 71% with vitamin D3 supplementation.  There is more good news with vitamin D3. You can read about it in the link.

Cancer By Chance

Cancer By Chance

Conclusion

The causes of cancer have always been by chance, by environmental exposure and by inheritance. In recent years more detail about this has come to the forefront. Now we know that the majority of cancers develop by chance, but this does not mean we should sit back and do nothing. The PAP test with early diagnosis of cancer of the cervix and early treatment has almost eradicated this cancer. HPV vaccinations have added to the armamentarium. Colonoscopies have reduced the incidence of colon cancer, but only through screening at regular intervals. The PSA test has enabled men to check for prostate cancer, and early treatment for this is quite successful. More knowledge is available now than in the past about cancer prevention through supplements and lifestyle.

Nature is cruel and wants to knock us off, as we get older. The only alternative we have is to fight back as follows: reducing environmental causes, increasing preventative steps and going for early treatment, when cancer is diagnosed.

Incoming search terms:

May
21
2014

Forty Percent Of Premature Deaths Can Be Prevented

A new report from the CDC (Center of Disease Control) in the US has revealed that up to 40% of premature deaths could be prevented by simple lifestyle changes. As this link shows every year about 900,000 premature deaths occur in the US, which are due to 5 major diseases that in the opinion of the CDC can be prevented by 20 to 40%. Here are the diseases that kill: cancer, heart disease, COPD/emphysema, stroke and accidents/injuries. These conditions were responsible for 63% of all deaths in the US in 2010.

Let’s discuss each of these conditions and how one could lower the risk of dying from them.

1. Cancer:

The Framingham Heart Study has shown that smoking and cancer are closely related. Smokers who quit can significantly reduce their risk of getting cancer. We also know that exercise and prophylactic supplements like fish oil and vitamin D3 have cancer preventative effects.

Antioxidant supplementation that included beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E daily or on alternate days for 1 to 12 years, along with selenium supplementation reduced the incidence of cancer of the esophagus, colon, pancreas, stomach or the liver. Insulin resistance due to sugar and starch overconsumption is causing cancer, particularly breast cancer, colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer. I have discussed this in a recent blog.

Pollution has been linked to increased lung cancer risks as discussed here.

2. Heart disease:

Heart disease can be caused by several factors in combination. Lifestyle issues are important: Smokers need to quit smoking as the Framingham Heart Study has shown more than fifty years ago that smoking causes heart attacks. Obesity and diabetes also contribute significantly to the risk of heart disease. Often these are connected to faulty nutrition, which is another lifestyle issue that comes to mind when too much sugar and starchy foods are taken in; your liver will convert these into fatty acids, triglycerides and elevated, oxidized LDL cholesterol, which gets deposited under the lining of the arteries. A lack of exercise adds to this problem as a lack of exercise lowers the protective HDL cholesterol and fat is deposited under the lining of the arteries. Start exercising and your protective HDL cholesterol will rise, your total cholesterol to HDL ratio will lower to healthier levels and your risk for hardening of the arteries and for getting a heart attack will fall. If you have diabetes, it is important that you manage your blood sugars well; this means that if you inject insulin, you want the blood sugar tests to be within the normal range and the hemoglobin A1C values to be below 5.5%. Poorly controlled diabetes is an important cause of heart attacks and strokes. High blood pressure is also an important cause of developing heart attacks and strokes. It is important to control your blood pressure by taking blood pressure lowering pills and also by exercising regularly. Exercise seems to send a signal to relax the blood vessels thus lowering the blood pressure, which in turn prevents heart attacks.

Forty Percent Of Premature Deaths Can Be Prevented

Forty Percent Of Premature Deaths Can Be Prevented

 

3. COPD/emphysema:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema is mostly caused by chronic exposure to cigarette smoke from smoking. The earlier you can quit, the better your chances that your breathing will not be the limiting factor when you age. But it is also important to avoid exposure to other noxious gases, such as from welding and from exposure to pollution. This may involve a decision to move to a less polluted area. Or it might involve a job retraining. Those who are suffering from COPD can be helped to a certain extent by a portable oxygen tank with nasal prongs.

4. Stroke:

As mentioned before, quitting smoking, controlling high blood pressure and controlling blood sugar, if you suffer from diabetes have been shown to stabilize your blood vessels including the ones that supply your brain. The key is to prevent hardening of the arteries by a healthy lifestyle. Exercising and keeping your weight under a body mass index of 25.0 have been shown to be effective stroke prevention. Healthy nutrition as indicated above under “heart disease” is equally important for stroke prevention. Go green (eat more vegetables, consume more green smoothies), cut down grains, sugar and starchy foods and you will live longer without strokes and heart attacks. Remember, what’s good for your heart is good for your brain!

5. Unintentional accidents/injuries:

Wearing helmets when bicycling, wearing seat belts when driving in a car, avoiding risky behaviors are all measures that save lives. One factor stands out in all of this: if you drink too much, you run the risk of being involved in unintentional accidents or injuries. People may not like to hear this, but your brain lacks the natural inhibitory impulses when you are under the influence of alcohol, so you become more daring and you may not pay attention for the split second that could have prevented an injury or accident. People react very differently to alcohol. Some people feel inebriated after only ½ a glass of wine or beer whereas others can drink more before they make mistakes. The best is to be sober when you drive, ski, use power tools or walk in traffic. Even climbing ladders requires a clear mind!

Conclusion:

As the CDC said 20 to 40% of premature deaths (deaths that occurred before the age of 80) could have been prevented, if the above-mentioned recommendations were followed. Let me rephrase this: 180,000 to 360,000 premature deaths every year in the US before the age of 80 could have been prevented! Curative medicine cannot help with these statistics as a heart attack or stroke has happened when it has struck you. Cancer and end stage lung disease are similar conditions that you are suddenly faced with when they occur and unintentional accidents just seem to happen. This is where the importance of prevention can be seen, because these little baby steps every day are adding up to something formidable, a force to be reckoned with. Be part of the solution, think prevention!

More information on:

1. Cancer mortality: http://nethealthbook.com/cancer-overview/overview/cancer-mortality-rate/

2. Higher vitamin D3 intake lowers mortality from heart attacks, strokes, cancer, fractures due to osteoporosis: http://nethealthbook.com/news/higher-vitamin-d-levels-associated-lower-risk-mortality/

Last edited Nov. 8, 2014

Feb
08
2014

Sugar As A Cause Of Cancer

It has been known for a long time that cancer cells can survive without the ordinary aerobic pathways of energy production. They can get energy from a metabolic pathway, which bypasses normal cell metabolism (aerobic glycolysis). But many attempts of designing a cancer therapy to exploit this difference have so far been unsuccessful.

This Mayo Clinic website even explains that it would be a myth that cancer would grow better with sugar. The following pieces of research question this myth.

Sugar makes cancer grow faster (activates oncogenes) in fruit flies

In this study from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City fruit flies were used as an animal model. You may ask, why fruit flies; we are not fruit flies, we are humans! As incredible as it sounds, on a cellular level our cell metabolism and the cell metabolism of fruit flies is identical. But the generation time of fruit flies is much shorter and results can be seen in days and weeks. To achieve the same in human trials would take months and years. Also, researchers could breed a strain of fruit flies that was susceptible to develop tumors. When they were fed sugar, the fruit flies developed insulin resistance within a short time. This model was chosen by the researchers as it is known for some time that in humans insulin resistance from diabetes, obesity, and other metabolic diseases leads to a higher risk of developing breast cancer, liver cancer, colon cancer and pancreatic cancer. The researchers wanted to sort out what the metabolic advantage of the cancer cells was under these conditions.

The researchers found that the sugar in the diet activated silent cancer causing genes (called “oncogenes)” in the fruit flies that in turn helped to promote insulin resistance and the development of tumors. Because of the insulin resistance sugar could not enter into the normal body cells, but the tumor was using up all of the sugar allowing the tumor cells to multiply at a rapid rate. The end result was that the sugar from the diet fed the cancer cells directly making them grow faster. Interestingly, when these flies that had developed tumors on a high sugar diet were switched to a high protein/low sugar diet, the tumors stopped growing and were contained.

In this fruit fly example the researchers were subsequently able to block cancer cell growth by special cancer suppressing drugs (acarbose, pyrvinium and an experimental drug AD81), which were given in combination. 90% of the flies given the triple-drug treatment survived to adulthood while control flies not treated with this regimen all died of their tumors.

Although this model was only done in fruit flies and one could question whether or not this was relevant to what is happening in human cancer patients, the following piece of research puts this fear to rest.

Sugar As A Cause Of Cancer

Sugar As A Cause Of Cancer

Human breast cancer cell study in vitro

In January 2014 the American Society for Clinical Investigation published a collaborative study between the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, CA and the Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan, which used human breast cells in tissue culture showing that sugar could cause breast cancer.

The original papers of this US/Japanese research team are quite technical and I do not expect you to understand this link where it is published. I posted it for those who want in depth information. The researchers used a simple tissue culture model where they could observe tumor growth in cell cultures under the microscope using a gel where the breast tissue samples were placed side by side with normal breast cells that served as controls. The cell cultures of both normal cells and malignant cells were obtained from the same reduction mammoplasty tissue samples. This way the cell cultures mimicked a situation as close to the reality of what is going on in a woman’s body when breast cancer develops.

The normal breast epithelial cells were seen in culture to get organized as a roundish cell formation (an acinus formation) while the cancer cells were growing as irregular cell clumps. This visual effect was reproducible and is depicted in the paper. With high sugar concentrations in the growth medium breast cancer cells multiplied at a faster rate, not so the normal cells. But some normal cells underwent a transformation into abnormal and cancerous cell types. On the other hand, when sugar concentrations were severely restricted, morphological changes took place where cancer cells slowed down their growth or stagnated while some of them even changed into the normal cell formation (acinus formation). Using various known oncogene stabilizers the investigators could show that the same effect was noted as with the low sugar concentration in the growth medium.

The investigators tested whether other cell lines of breast cancer would show similar results as to the effects of sugar feeding or restriction. They were able to show that high sugar feeding activated cancer cells, no matter where the cancer cell lines originated. The authors discussed that metformin, which is known to control the metabolism in diabetic patients and lowers blood sugar levels, has also been shown to calm down growth of cancer (due to stopping oncogene stimulation), which improves the survival rates of many different cancer types in diabetic patients; it also reduces the risk of developing cancer in those who are taking metformin.

Other investigators have shown in mouse experiments that an impressive lowering of cancer rates could be achieved with low carb diets.

Human evidence for cancer causation and cancer prevention

Several clinical studies seem to indicate that there is a higher cancer rate in diabetics where insulin resistance can lead to activation of cancer producing genes (called oncogenes) and cause various cancers. In this link colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer are discussed in relationship to diabetes and insulin resistance. High glycemic foods (sugar, starchy foods) were associated with breast cancer, colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer. The majority of trials showed this association although not all. The more obese patients were, the more pronounced the insulin resistance was and the more the relationship to these cancers became apparent. A diet that is high in starchy foods like potatoes, rice and bread is causing pancreatic cancer as was shown by researchers at the Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health. High glycemic diets have shown to cause colorectal cancer, diabetes and being overweight. The Standard North American Diet (SAD) is a pathway to many chronic illnesses due its high load in refined carbohydrates. Ironically the abbreviation for it is “SAD”, which in my opinion reflects adequately its sad influence on health and well being. We know now that sugar and starchy foods lead to insulin overproduction, which in turn causes the metabolic syndrome (also known as “insulin resistance”). This causes the immune system to weaken and fat to be deposited as visceral fat in the stomach area. Visceral fat is metabolically very active as it secretes cytokines like tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF alpha), COX-2 enzymes and others. Insulin and growth factors from the visceral fat gang up together with the elevated blood sugar, which activates tumor-producing genes (oncogenes) to cause cancer.

While cancer rates are higher in patients with insulin resistance, they were lower in patients who did have normal insulin levels. It is important to concentrate your efforts on normalizing weight, which will normalize insulin sensibility and avoid the development of cancer. Sugar avoidance and avoidance of cereals and starchy foods will help you achieve this goal.

Conclusion

Although the idea that sugar could cause cancer has been around since 1924 (Dr. Warburg), it has taken up to now to be proven in animals and humans.

The purpose of this blog was to show how there is a connection between the consumption of sugar and starchy foods and various cancers in man. Animal experiments are useful in suggesting these connections, but many clinical trials including the Women’s Health Initiative have shown that these findings are also true in humans. It is insulin resistance due to sugar and starch overconsumption that is causing cancer.

We are now in a position to know why people who consume a low carb diet, develop less cancer than people who consume a high carb diet. I have followed such a low carb diet (also known as low-glycemic index food diet) since 2001 and find it easy to follow. However, I do not dispute that it takes some discipline to change the old way of eating to the new one. The benefits are definitely worth it: you are feeling well now and you are staying well as you age.

More information about hyperinsulinism that can cause breast cancer: http://nethealthbook.com/cancer-overview/breast-cancer/causes-breast-cancer/

Last edited Nov. 7, 2014

Incoming search terms:

Aug
10
2013

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement

In many previous blogs I have mentioned that bioidentical hormone replacement prolongs life. Here is a more detailed look at what such hormone replacement looks like for both women and men. Before I get into details I want to stress that I am talking about replacing what is missing and replacing only with natural hormones, not some artificial hormone derivative produced by a drug company. The reason this is immensely important is that hormone receptors in the body are distributed all over our vital organs including bones, blood vessels and the nervous system. If there is no lock and key fit (bio-identical hormone fitting the hormone receptor), there is trouble as the Women’s Health Initiative in 2002 has shown. Unfortunately they had used synthetic hormones for HRT that were not fitting the hormone receptors, and this caused many problems (heart attacks, strokes, osteoporosis, cancer).

Physiology of aging

As we age, we gradually produce fewer hormones in our hormone glands, but the various hormone glands deteriorate in their functions at different rates. Beyond the age of 30 we produce less melatonin and less growth hormone. As a result our sleep pattern may change, as melatonin is necessary for a deep sleep. The decreasing growth hormone production means that we are losing some of our muscle mass and accumulate more fat in the subcutaneous tissues. Our adrenal glands produce less DHEA at the age of 35 to 40, a hormone that is a precursor to our sex hormones in males and females. The gonads (testicles and ovaries) also produce fewer hormones, a process which already starts 5 years before menopause and about 5 years before andropause (the male menopause equivalent).

Typically a woman will get into menopause at the age of 45 to 55 at which time the periods stop and postmenopausal symptoms are interfering with her well-being.  Men get into andropause (the male equivalent of menopause) at the age of 55 to 65 at which time erectile dysfunction occurs and often the individual will become the “grumpy old man”.

Other hormones such as thyroid hormones are also affected by the slow down. Hypothyroidism is common in people above the age of 50.

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement

Baseline laboratory tests

In order to know what is going on, the physician or naturopath needs to order a number of tests to assess whether there is inflammation, how your key hormone levels are; the cardiovascular system markers should also be checked, the liver enzymes and vitamin D3 level. Inflammatory markers are fasting insulin levels and C-reactive protein (CRP). Fasting cholesterol and subfractions (HDL, LDL, VDLP, small LDL) and fasting triglycerides are also measured. Thyroid hormones (T3 and T4, TSH) are measured to rule out over or under function. Typically hypothyroidism is found, which would have to be rectified by taking Armour (a mix of T3 and T4 thyroid hormones).

At this point I need to explain that long time ago the research by Dr. Lee has shown that progesterone hormone levels are notoriously unreliable when blood tests are done. All of the other sex hormones, and cortisol are also not that reliable with blood tests. For this reason the saliva hormone tests have been invented that conveniently report a panel of 5 hormones from one saliva sample: DHEAS (which is the storage form of DHEA), estradiol (the major estrogen in a woman), progesterone, testosterone and cortisol. The saliva hormone tests correlate very well with the actual tissue hormone levels. You can order the saliva tests through Dr. Lee’s website. Another longstanding lab in the US is Dr. David Zava’s lab. In Canada the Rocky Mountain Analytical Lab can process your saliva tests.

Women’s hormone replacement

Let us assume that a woman is getting postmenopausal symptoms and bioidentical hormone replacement is being discussed. The physician will want to first rule out that insulin resistance is not present by ordering a fasting insulin level. If this is normal and the other baseline tests are normal as well except for missing estrogen and progesterone, the physician will usually start to replace progesterone first using a bioidentical hormone cream to be applied once or twice per day. If estrogen levels were also low, the next step in 4 weeks or so is to add Bi-Est, a bioidentical estrogen replacement cream. After 8 weeks of hormone replacement the saliva hormone test is repeated to see whether the estrogen and progesterone levels have come up and also, whether the ratio of progesterone to estrogen is at least 200 or more. Dr. Lee has extensively researched this and found that women with a ratio of less than 200 to 1 (progesterone/estrogen ratio) were more prone to breast cancer. He also stated in this link that there are 3 basic rules with regard to bioidentical hormone replacement:

1. only replace hormones, when they were measured to be low.

2. use only bioidentical hormones (never synthetic hormones) and

3. only replace with low doses of bioidentical hormones to bring hormone levels to physiological levels (body levels that were experienced to be normal before).

Many women who are not replaced in menopause have estrogen dominance meaning that the progesterone/estrogen ratio is less than 200:1, which puts these women at risk of developing breast cancer. Women who are overweight or obese also are estrogen dominant (from estrogen produced in excess through aromatase in the fatty tissue, explained further below), which makes them more prone to breast cancer, uterine cancer and colon cancer. Without bioidentical hormone replacement inflammatory processes take place in the joints (causing arthritis), in the nervous system (causing Alzheimer’s and dementia) and in the blood vessels (causing heart attacks and strokes). Rebalancing your hormones to a youthful state by paying attention to the hormone levels and the hormone ratios mentioned will remove the inflammatory reactions and reduce the risk for cancer.

Men’s hormone replacement

Males enter andropause 10 to 15 years later than women are entering menopause. Typically testosterone production slows down leading to hair loss, erectile dysfunction, loss of muscle mass, osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s/dementia. Blood tests (bioavailable testosterone) or saliva tests are both reliable in determining a deficiency. Replacement with bioidentical hormone creams once per day is the preferred method of treatment. Overweight and obese men produce significant amounts of estrogen through an enzyme localized in fatty tissue, called aromatase.

Aromatase converts testosterone and other male type hormones, called androgens, into estrogen. Estrogen causes breast growth, weakens muscles, and leads to abdominal fat accumulation, heart disease and strokes.

Similar to women, where the progesterone/estrogen ratio is important, there is another ratio for men, called testosterone/estrogen ratio. This should be in the 20 to 40 range for a man to feel good and energetic. Unfortunately many men above the age of 55 have testosterone/estrogen ratios much smaller than 20. This makes them more prone to heart disease and prostate cancer (Ref.1).

However, a male also does need a small amount of estrogen and normal thyroid hormones as well as all of the other hormones for his “hormonal symphony” (mentioned in Ref. 2) to function at his best.

Safety of hormone replacement

There are still otherwise reputable websites that state that bioidentical hormones are not safer than standard synthetic hormones. This confuses the consumer and does not serve the public well. I much prefer the text of the Wikipedia, which is a more thorough review regarding safety of hormone replacement and explains what the issues are.

In the US there is a collective experience of about 25 years on thousands of patients, but there have not been any randomized studies, as Big Pharma that would have the money to finance such studies is not interested in proving that bioidentical drugs would be safer than their distorted synthetic hormone copies that will not fit the body’s hormone receptors. There are some noble exceptions as Big Pharma is producing bioidentical insulin and human growth hormone that had toxicity studies done and showed safety. In Europe bioidentical hormones have been used since the 1960’s, on a larger scale since the 1970’s. So the European experience of safety of bioidentical hormones is presently about 40 to 50 years.

The FDA is contributing to the confusion of the public as can be seen from this publication. One example where the FDA is confusing the consumer, is the progesterone product Prometrium, a bioidentical micronized progesterone capsule that can be taken by mouth. By law the manufacturer had to put a warning label on the package identical to progestin, which is the synthetic, non-bioidentical hormone having been shown to have severe side effects. As is explained in this last publication Prometrium should not have been required to have a warning label in it ; the paper explains what I have already stated above, namely that bioidentical hormones are the safest form of hormone replacement and administered in the right ratios will actually prevent cancer and prevent premature cardiovascular and joint deterioration. In other words, bioidentical hormone replacement can add many years of useful life when started early enough before permanent organ damage sets in from the aging process (which would be due to missing hormones).

Why bother about hormone replacement?

Nature has a plan of “knocking us off” to make room for the next generation. The only way that you can change nature’s plan of killing us prematurely through cardiovascular disease, arthritis, dementia and loss of your sexual life is by bioidentical hormone replacement. Of course you also need the other ingredients of known life prolongers such as healthy (preferably organic) foods, exercise and detoxification. Many women are scared to treat the hormone deficiencies that cause their menopausal symptoms because of the Women’s health Initiative results with synthetic hormones. Men who would benefit from testosterone are often anxious that they may get prostate cancer, when in reality it is the exact opposite: testosterone prevents prostate cancer (Ref.3).

Conclusion

I wrote this blog about bioidentical hormone replacement in order to clarify this often-misunderstood topic. Don’t get confused by the FDA, by highbrow medical websites (such as the likes I mentioned). Big Pharma has a powerful lobby that attempts to keep the medical profession in the belief that their products are better than those that nature has provided (I call it “defend your patent rights”). We are still in a flux state where anybody who tells the truth about hormones gets much criticism. In another few decades it will be an accepted fact and people will wonder why the Women’s Health Initiative was done without a control with bioidentical hormones. With bioidentical hormone replacement you can add about 20 years of youthful life without disabilities to the normal life expectancy. Exercise, detoxification and organic food with avoidance of wheat, starch and sugar can add another 5 to 10 years to your life. The baby boomers are lucky that they have this new tool to prolong life. I wonder whether they will put it to good use.

More information about bioidentical hormone replacement: http://nethealthbook.com/hormones/anti-aging-medicine-women-men/

References:

1. John R. Lee: “Hormone Balance for Men – What your Doctor May Not Tell You About Prostate Health and Natural Hormone Supplementation”, © 2003 by Hormones Etc.

2. Suzanne Somers: “Breakthrough” Eight Steps to Wellness– Life-altering Secrets from Today’s Cutting-edge Doctors”, Crown Publishers, 2008

3. Abraham Morgentaler, MD “Testosterone for Life – Recharge your vitality, sex drive, muscle mass and overall health”, McGraw-Hill, 2008

Last edited Nov. 7, 2014

Incoming search terms:

May
11
2013

Changes Of Gut Bacteria Can Cause Heart Attacks

The recent news of gut bacteria possibly being involved in causing heart attacks (see details below) sounds pretty outrageous. In order to make this more understandable, we need to start backtracking how bacteria end up in our gut and what they are doing there.

Gut bacteria in our bowels at various stages in life

Even among infants there is a huge difference in the composition of the gut flora depending on whether the baby was vaginally delivered, born by Cesarean section or prematurely born and nursed in an intensive care unit for a prolonged period of time.

When we are grown up, it depends on where we live on our planet as to what type of gut flora we have. A 2011 study of the bacterial composition of stool samples in Europe versus Africa showed that the European microbiome in the colon was typical of the Bacteroides enterotype, whereas the African microbiome was dominated by the Prevotella enterotype. Other studies have shown that the type of diet we eat causes us to harbor different types of gut flora. A person eating a more vegetarian diet will have a Prevotella enterotype gut flora, while another person eating a Western style fat and protein dominated diet will have a Bacteroides enterotype gut flora. What is the gut flora doing? It lives within our gut for our mutual benefit. We provide the gut bacteria a comfortable home at body temperature where they grow best. They in turn ferment undigested foods, protect us from the growth of harmful bacteria, produce vitamins like vitamin K and biotin, and produce hormones that direct the body to store excess food as fat.

Changes Of Gut Bacteria Can Cause Heart Attacks

Changes Of Gut Bacteria Can Cause Heart Attacks

Cleveland Clinic’s gut flora research linked to heart attacks

In April 2013 reports that heart attacks may be related to the composition of your gut flora hit the popular press, articles like this. Two years earlier, in April of 2011, the same Cleveland research group under Dr. Stanley Hazen found that the gut flora composition has an impact on heart disease. They stated that a “byproduct called trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) is produced when intestinal bacteria digest the nutrient phosphatidylcholine, commonly known as lecithin”. It was determined that the liver was responsible for producing TMAO out of absorbed materials from gut bacteria and that this was responsible for accelerating hardening of the arteries, which in turn caused deadly heart attacks and strokes.

As can be seen from this link the Cleveland research group is suggesting that TMAO could become a valuable screening tool when measured in patients’ blood to screen for their risk to develop a heart attack or stroke in the future. Furthermore, once these patients are identified, they can be sent to a dietitian and be put on a different diet that prevents heart attacks and strokes; also, the progress could again be monitored through repeat TMAO blood tests down the road.

Criticism of research from the Cleveland Clinic

Not every one has welcomed the study as clear-cut proof for a link between the gut flora and heart attacks, strokes and deaths. This link shows that it is questioned whether perhaps low antibiotic residues in red meat would explain the findings of the study. It rightly points out that there was no control for whether the more than 4000 patients were eating organic foods or a regular American diet. The comment goes on to say that the regular American diet contains residual antibiotics from milk, milk products, beef, chicken and turkey. These traces of antibiotics are powerful enough to have an effect on the gut flora, which likely is the reason for the differences between the vegetarian diet versus a Western style fat and protein dominated diet. It is entirely possible that grass fed beef would not lead to TMAO levels in the blood whereas regular beef or hamburger meat will raise the TMAO levels. The same could be true for egg consumption, which was also accused of raising TMAO levels. However, we do not know whether organic eggs that do not contain antibiotics would have done the same as regular eggs that contain traces of antibiotics.

Cancer caused by gut flora

This 2008 review article explains how lactobacillus and bifidobacteria (probiotics) prevent colon cancer, while bacteria of the Bacteroides and Clostridium variety increase the incidence of colon cancer and the growth rate of colonic tumors. So, the composition of your gut flora does not only matter with regard to prevention of heart attacks and strokes, but is also important in preventing colon cancer.

Change your gut flora to boost your health

Here is where the “rubber hits the road”. What I mean is that you can benefit from all of this research with regard to your health by paying attention to a few facts and possibly making a few changes as follows.

  1. I think that the argument of the bulletproofexec.com website holds true and we should all eat organic meats whenever possible. The Cleveland study has already shown that the gut flora in vegetarians stayed healthy even when they occasionally slipped and ate a regular steak.
  2. Take supplemental probiotics from the health food store. It will improve your gut flora within a day or two.
  3. Higher intake of fruit and vegetables make a measurable difference in the body decreasing the risk for heart attacks and strokes as this British research group has shown. Another research group from Italy has confirmed that an increased intake of fruit and vegetables mobilizes genetic switches that will stabilize the metabolism of the gut wall and prevent cancer of the colon.

So, the verdict for boosting your health is out: eat organic foods, use probiotics as supplements and eat more fruit and vegetables!

More information on nutrition: http://nethealthbook.com/health-nutrition-and-fitness/nutrition/

References

  1. http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v19/n5/full/nm.3145.html
  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23614584

Last edited Nov. 7, 2014

Mar
10
2013

March Is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, So Let’s Discuss Prevention

Introduction

March is colorectal cancer awareness month, so let’s discuss prevention. Only 40 years ago cancer of the cervix was one of the major killers for women, but with the introduction of the Pap test this has all changed.  For those women who get that screening done, there is no need for fear. The mortality rate from cervical cancer since the 1970’s has steadily decreased as shown in this link.

As far as cancer of the prostate is concerned, a lot of progress with regard to early detection has been made due to the introduction of the PSA blood test, which is used as a method of screening. As a result men are diagnosed earlier with prostate cancer resulting in more cures as the cancer found is at an earlier stage. Here is a link depicting the effect of the PSA test on mortality rates from prostate cancer in time.

March is colorectal cancer awareness month, so let’s discuss prevention

March is colorectal cancer awareness month as this article explains. The key is early detection and treatment as with any type of cancer. Specifically, with rectal and colon cancer there are mostly no symptoms, as blood in stool or any other symptoms occur only late into the disease. What we do know, however, is that there is a long latent phase where precancerous mucous membrane changes lead to polyps and these will degenerate in time into cancer of the colon or rectum.

Not everyone has the same risk of developing colon cancer or rectal cancer.  There are people with a higher rate of colorectal cancer, as they carry a susceptibility gene in their families. A healthy lifestyle can also reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.

March Is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, So Let’s Discuss Prevention

March Is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, So Let’s Discuss Prevention

Polyps are the precancerous precursors for colorectal cancer

It is now widely accepted that polyps are the precancerous precursors for colorectal cancer and colonoscopies done on everybody starting at age 50 (those with family risk factors much earlier) have already been shown to have decreased the frequency of the disease as the data from the CDC show. The problem is that the survival curves for colorectal cancer have only a swallow incline. A steeper decline would mean better survival of colorectal cancer patients. In the case of the mortality rates of cervical cancer and prostate cancer the slope showed a more rapid decline translating int much better survival rates.

Not enough colonoscopies are done

The incidence of colon cancer should have gone down to almost the zero point. All that has been achieved so far is a reduction of a portion of cases (those who went for colonoscopies early enough before it turned into colon cancer); this is by far not an elimination of colorectal cancer. The reason for this is the fact that in many cases people have colonoscopies too late when the polyp has already turned cancerous, or invasive colon or rectal cancer is already present at the time of the first colonoscopy.

Designating March as colorectal awareness month makes a lot of sense to me

I happen to come from a family where my mother died in 1980 from colon cancer at the age of 59. Because of this my doctor told me that I have a risk of about 3-fold higher than the population at large to also develop colon cancer. I have had colonoscopies since the age of 40 every 3 years. Ironically a few days ago right during the colorectal awareness month, I was getting my 9th colonoscopy. On three occasions polyps were removed, which tells me that the cancer-screening program works!

Why screen for colon cancer in regular intervals?

So why is it important to screen in regular intervals? One reason is that we are now exposed to more toxic chemicals in our environment and food than 100 years ago. So all cancers, but especially colorectal cancer rates have increased. We know the pathophysiology, which is the science that studies how an illness develops. We know that it takes several years between the occurrence of the first precancerous cells that form in the lining of the gut (called “mucosa”) and the formation of polyps. It takes another few years before polyps turn cancerous. This means that there is enough of a time interval to do screening. If we are not aware of this and ignore it (as unfortunately many people do), the process will run down the conveyor belt on an automatic program, which ends up in end stage colorectal cancer. The stages of colon cancer are depicted in this link.

Invasive colon cancer is deadly

As the table of my chapter on colon cancer staging shows, the invasive end stage colon cancer (stage IV or Duke D) has a 5-year survival rate of only 6%. Even when the cancer is limited to stage II (also called Duke stage B) there would be a 5-year survival of only 80% (see table in link).

What does screening really achieve? On an individual basis the gastroenterologist who does the colonoscopy can screen the whole colon for premalignant polyps and remove them during the procedure. This moves the potential cancer staging backwards to beyond any detectable cancer, as all of the potential early cancer cells would have been inside the polyp (called local “in situ” disease) and were removed by cauterizing the stalk (see above link). There is another potential factor that can help to reduce colorectal cancer incidence: Recently a connection was made between

Helicobacter pylori as a risk factor for colorectal cancer

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection of the stomach and polyps in the colon as well as colon cancer. In the past several smaller studies failed to show this correlation. It took 156,269 patients in this study to show that there was a correlation. As H. pylori is being tested for and treated more and more, this will also have a positive effect on lowering the frequency of colorectal cancer.

Mass colonoscopy screening

On a population basis with mass colonoscopy screening the incidence of colorectal cancer is reduced. The reduction of colon cancer would be much faster. Eventually it would turn into a disease similar to cancer of the cervix. Here it still matters whether you screen or not, but very few people have to suffer from it. Here is an image from a paper (look for Fig. 2, halfway down the page). It shows that survival benefits (longer lives) are registered only after 10 years or more following colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer statistics

Every polyp that is removed will add up to the colon and rectum health of the nation at large. This shows statistically, when you sum up all of the colonoscopies done around the country year after year.  We need a nationwide and worldwide awareness that colorectal cancer screening is something worthwhile doing. This cancer is the third most frequent cancer in many parts of the world.

I am grateful that colonoscopy screening works, as I had polyps removed three times over a 29 year span and I did not have to go through all the surgical procedures that my mother had to endure. Had I lived 50 years earlier I may not have lived long enough to tell you how important colonoscopy screening is.

Here are the recommendations

      1. Let us assume there is no risk of colorectal cancer in your family. In this case screen once at the age of 50. This makes sure you are not one of the spontaneous colorectal polyp producers. If OK, screen every 10 years provided the colonoscopy is always negative.
      2. A family history of direct bloodline relative increases the risk for colorectal cancer. Direct bloodline relatives are: mother, father, brother or sister. If one of them had cancer of the colon or rectum, you have a higher cancer risk. In these individuals a gastroenterologist must do colonoscopies every 3 years.
Missed polyps during a colonoscopy
      1. There may be up to 15% of missed polyps during a colonoscopy. But with the next colonoscopy there is a high likelihood that the physician catches the abnormal polyp in time. The pathologist confirms that the subsequent screening caught them before they turn cancerous.
      2. There are special cases, families with genetic syndromes like the familial polyposis of the colon. In these families a gastroenterologist needs to screen children/young adults for polyps when they are still young. This is from the age of 20 to 25 years onwards.

Don’t complain, if you belong to category 1 or 2 as it could be much worse (category 3). Cancer is serious business. Remember, March is colorectal cancer awareness month.

More information about colon cancer.

Jun
01
2006

Screening Colonoscopy Highly Effective

The proverbial “ounce of prevention” can be very crucial when it comes to cancer screening methods. Cancer screening has been in the forefront for some time. Early disease detection is not only crucial for successful treatment; it can be a lifesaver!
Effective screening methods are available for some forms of cancer. Mammography screening for breast cancer and rectal examination and PSA tests for prostate cancer are methods that have received attention in the media.
Screening the large intestine for colon cancer by performing a colonoscopy has not made inroads, but new statistics point out the benefits. A colonoscopy will examine the colon for irregularities, namely the formation of polyps. Polyps are initially harmless and non-cancerous, however over time, some polyps have the potential to turn cancerous. In a colonoscopy examination, small polyps can be removed immediately, and this “weeding out” process is a highly effective preventative method against colon cancer. Research has shown, that one colonoscopy that is performed in a middle-aged patient (in his 50’s or 60’s) decreases the risk of developing colon cancer quite significantly. If no polyps are found in the initial screening, it is safe to assume that no colon cancer will present itself for 10 years.

Dr. Harminder Singh and associates from Cancer Care Manitoba and the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg Manitoba/Canada, analyzed data of the Manitoba Health’s physicians’ database where 35,975 patients had undergone a colonoscopy, but were negative for colon cancer.These colonoscopies took place between April 1, 1989, and December 31, 2003 and follow-up was for 10 years. The end point was death or diagnosis of colon cancer.

One Screening Colonoscopy Guarantees Low Colon Cancer Risk for 10 Years (modified JAMA. 2006; 295: p.2366-2373)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This retrospective study showed the following results depicted in the modified graph bar. Patients who were negative in the beginning of the study had a reduction of colon cancer rates of 72% at the 10-year point when compared to those who had no colonoscopy. This is quite an astounding finding. Even at the 5-year point there was a reduction of colon cancer risk by 45% from a single colonoscopy. This would indicate that a person should have a colonoscopy at about the age of 50 to establish freedom of colon cancer. This could be repeated only every 10 years to ensure that no colon polyps and colon cancer develop in the meantime. This should be definitely done in patients who have a family history where colon cancer occurred in a first relative such as mother, father, brother or sister, where specialists say screening should be done every 3 years. In this familial form of colon cancer they should also have a colonoscopy done earlier (at age 40 or earlier). However, this data would indicate that in everybody such colonoscopy screening would be beneficial as it is one of the most common cancers in men and women and other tests are not reliable at this time.

More information about colon cancer: http://nethealthbook.com/cancer-overview/colon-cancer/

Reference: JAMA. 2006;295: page 2366-2373

Last edited Nov. 1, 2014

Jan
01
2006

Colon Cancer Associated with H. Pylori

The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori has been identified as a risk for the development of stomach cancer. Infection with this microbe has come under more scrutiny, as patients who are seropositive to H. pylori are more likely to develop colorectal cancer than those patients who are seronegative. The green colored bacteria on this image are H. pylori in the gastrointestinal tract.

Dr. Akio Inui from Kagoshima University in Japan has investigated the relationship of this microbe in the development of colon cancer by analyzing data from 332 patients who were screened by virtual colonoscopy (high-resolution colonoscopy) and serological testing for H. pylori. Of the patient group 42 % with H. pylori antibodies had tubular adenomas (precancerous colon cancer lesions) but only 19% of the negative group had colonic cancers. The researchers concluded that more investigations and long-term prospective studies are needed to explore the biological basis of Helicobacter infection and colon cancer.

Colon Cancer Associated with H. Pylori

Colon Cancer Associated with H. Pylori

In the meantime it is important to eradicate infection in order to prevent stomach and colon cancers.

More info on gastritis and H. pylori: http://nethealthbook.com/digestive-system-and-gastrointestinal-disorders/gastritis/

More info on colon cancer: http://nethealthbook.com/cancer-overview/colon-cancer/

Reference: Int. J. Cancer 2005; 117: 1058-1059

Last edited October 30, 2014

Jul
01
2005

Less Alcohol And Fat, More Exercise Battles Cancer

A lot has been said about choosing a healthy lifestyle in the prevention of cancers, but there is even better news now. It is not too late to make a switch to healthy living for those who have been diagnosed with cancer to reap significant benefits.
Dr. Bruce Johnson, director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute says that it is helpful to impress on cancer patients to cut down on fat and to exercise more in order to reduce their risk for recurrence. Dr. Jeffrey Meyerhardt, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also points out that in the past studies have shown that physical activity can lower the risk of developing colon cancer, but his new research is the first to suggest a benefit for people who already have the disease. A study including 832 patients with Stage III colon cancer who had been treated with surgery and chemotherapy showed that the cancer survival rate (where no disase was present) was 49% higher in those who were moderately active. The activity was either a two to three mph walk, six days a week, or other equivalents: running fast two times a week, or playing tennis three times a week.

Less Alcohol And Fat, More Exercise Battles Cancer

Less Alcohol And Fat, More Exercise Battles Cancer

In a second study breast cancer was investigated in a group of patients who adopted a low-fat diet. Compared to those who continued to eat their regular food they were about one-fourth less likely to suffer a breast cancer recurrence in the next five years. This report comes from Dr. Rowan Chlebowski at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. This was a larger study involving 2,437 women ages 48 to 79 years. The goal was to reduce fat intake to 20% or less of daily calories. The women were not taught to reduce total calories; just fat was reduced: no butter, margarine or baked goods. By five years, less than 10% of women on the low-fat diet had a breast cancer recurrence, compared with more than 12% of those on their usual diet. This translates into a relative risk reduction of 24%, concludes Dr. Chlebowski.

Breast Cancer Risk From Longterm Daily Alcohol Consumption As Compared To Non-Drinkers

Breast Cancer from Daily Exposures to Increasing Amounts Consumed

Breast Cancer from Daily Exposures to Increasing Amounts Consumed

Research about alcohol intake and the risk of developing breast cancer is especially important for women.The study comes also from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. Wendy Chen, a medical oncologist, reports that the more alcohol consumed regularly, the greater the risk. A study involved 121,700 registered nurses who were 30 to 55 years old in 1976. This study went on for 14 years and between 1980 and 1990 alcohol consumption questions were asked on several occasions; the women were followed up until 2004. Women who drank 5 to 9.9 grams of alcohol per day on average (the equivalent of a half-glass of wine) were 6% more likely to develop breast cancer than teetotalers. Women who consumed 10 to 19.9 grams per day saw their risk increase to 21%, and those who drank more than 20g per day, which means two drinks per day, were 37 % more likely to develop breast cancer. The finding of increased breast cancer rates was an independent risk factor associated solely with alcohol consumption. There has been a lot of hoopla lately about the benefits of a glass of wine for heart health, and the phrase of “everything in moderation” consoles us that a little bit cannot hurt. It turns out, that a little bit on a daily basis, alcohol in this case, can be a risky choice for women (see dose-response curve in the graph above). A link has been established between alcohol and breast cancer.

More information on:

Cancer causes: http://nethealthbook.com/cancer-overview/overview/epidemiology-cancer-origin-reason-cancer/

Exercise: http://nethealthbook.com/health-nutrition-and-fitness/fitness/

Lowering fat intake: http://nethealthbook.com/health-nutrition-and-fitness/nutrition/fat-good-bad-fatty-acids/

Reference: The Medical Post, June7, 2005, page 20

Last edited October 28, 2014

Nov
01
2004

Not All Vitamins Prevent Cancer

Even in the recent past, vitamins were looked at as an essential weapon to prevent illness, however, a large study by the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group at the Centre for Clinical Intervention Research at Copenhagen University has come up with disappointing evidence.

A large evidence-based analysis was performed involving a population of 170,525 persons who were enrolled in randomized trials. They received a regimen of antioxidant supplementation that included beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E daily or on alternate days for 1 to 12 years, along with selenium every year for 2 to 4 years.
All trials reported the separate or combined incidence of cancer of the esophagus, colon, pancreas, stomach or the liver.
Results showed that beta-carotene alone, the most widely tested antioxidant for cancer prevention, did not have substantial cancer-fighting properties in gastrointestinal cancers. The devastating blow is the fact that beta-carotene in combination with vitamin A and vitamin C significantly increased mortality! Recent studies examining vitamin C show, that it can be an antioxidant, but it also can be a pro-oxidant (the less desirable quality). Trials involving selenium very clearly showed that it might have beneficial effects on the incidence of gastrointestinal cancers.
Following these news it would be a grave mistake to assume, that fruit and vegetables with their built-in antioxidants, micronutrients, dietary fiber and beneficial plant-chemicals have fallen off grace.

Not All Vitamins Prevent Cancer

Not All Vitamins Prevent Cancer

The truth is, that fruit and vegetables typically contain safe levels of vitamins. Most studies have reported that adequate intake of fruit and vegetables are indeed associated with a low incidence of cancer.
The study, however, clearly points out the pitfalls of vitamin supplementation.
-“The more the better” does not apply when it comes to taking vitamins.
-Antioxidants according to this study are not as beneficial for cancer prevention as was thought of in the past.
– Only vitamin C and selenium held up to the scrutiny of the evidence-based researchers with regard to having preventative effects regarding the above named gastrointestinal cancers.

Reference: The Lancet, Vol. 364, Number 9441, pg.1219-28,  October 2, 2004

Last edited December 7, 2012