The Use Of Oncolytic Viruses For Cancer Treatment

In the first place, preliminary experiments indicate that the use of oncolytic viruses for cancer treatment may become a reality. There are several lines of research that point to the fact that oncolytic viruses can make a difference in treating incurable cancer patients.

Notably, Canadian researchers had reported in 2011 that oncolytic viruses created by genetically modifying smallpox vaccine viruses would enter tumor cells of patients, but not damage normal cells. Specifically, a high percentage of the end stage patients responded with tumor regression.

Shortly after Mayo Clinic physicians were desperate when two patients with end stage multiple myeloma, a vicious bone tumor, did not respond to chemotherapy. Significantly, they tried something unconventional: high doses of the measles vaccine in an attempt to stimulate the immune system. Here is an overview from 2014 that shows that many different cancers respond to various immunological approaches.

Study from Holland regarding end stage melanoma patients

Here is a small human study involving end-stage melanoma patients treated with the oncolytic virus T-VEC combined with pembrolizumab (Keytruda). It is important to realize that Keytruda helps to reactivate a T-cell response to the cancer cells. In this case the cancer cells absorb the oncolytic virus (T-VEC), but it leaves normal cells alone. Inside the cancer cells the oncolytic virus multiplies and destroys the cancer cells. In this 2017 study 21 patients with terminal, nonresectable melanoma received treatment with T-VEC and Keytruda. Specifically, 62% of the patients showed an objective response to the treatment. Moreover, 33% fulfilled the criteria of an immune-related response. In the past terminal patients like these had a 0% response to radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

History of research about oncolytic viruses

To begin with, in 1912 rabies virus treatment against cervical carcinoma was a first attempt to treat cancer. Researchers conducted many experiments between 1950 and 1970 with wild type or naturally attenuated viruses. This included, for example, hepatitis A and B viruses. In 1991 cancer researchers developed the concept of genetically engineered oncolytic viruses. Today cancer researchers know that the protection mechanisms in most cancer cells have deficiencies. This involves the interferon‐beta signal pathway. Having said this, there is an opportunity to let oncolytic viruses destroy cancer cells, while normal cells stay unaffected. An oncolytic virus that cancer experts use in human cancers is the genetically engineered herpes simplex virus type I (HSV‐1). Others that cancer researchers developed have strange names like T‐Vec, G47∆, JX594, CG0070 and Reolysin.

Various cancers that researchers treated with oncolytic viruses

Here are a few examples of cancers where researchers used oncolytic viruses to exert a significant therapeutic effect.


Glioblastoma is a deadly form of a brain tumor, which has a high rate of mortality. Researchers have investigated new avenues to treat this cancer. Researchers tested the genetically engineered dendritic vaccine. Initial clinical trials showed significant effectiveness compared to non-treated controls. In a large phase 3 clinical trial 331 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma received treatment at the time of neurosurgery with dendritic cell vaccine. 30.2% of the patients were still alive and doing well after 3 1/3 years. Without the added vaccination procedure all of these patients would have died in the past because of the aggressiveness of the glioblastoma.

Multiple myeloma

Researchers could cure multiple myeloma and other cancers by using the measles vaccine. Here is a report by the popular press about two women who had multiple myeloma. One woman got cured by high doses of a measles vaccine. The other women experienced some relief, but did not survive.

This publication explains that oncolytic viral therapy of cancer is a lot more complicated than originally thought.

Prostate cancer

Researchers found that vaccines against prostate cancer were effective with the combination of oncolytic virus therapy with regular anti-cancer treatments. But oncolytic virus therapy alone has a poorer prognosis than a combination of chemotherapy or radiotherapy with oncolytic virus therapy.

Cervical cancer

The high-risk HPV16 strain most often causes cervical cancer. The HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccine targets patients with previous exposure to HPV16. However, researchers have noticed that in some cases a phenomenon called the “HPV immune escape” has allowed in some vaccinated women to still develop cervical cancer. Now a group of researchers are investigating how the vaccine could be improved by finding out how the immune system is being tricked in these cases by the HPV virus to bypass the antibodies of the vaccine.

Pancreatic cancer

This cancer is very difficult to detect in the early stages, and as a result the outlook for chemotherapy or radiotherapy is extremely poor. Researchers have used several approaches as an alternative to conventional therapy. Immunotherapy is an option. Mayo clinic researchers have already announced that the measles vaccine approach will likely be applicable to pancreatic cancer treatment as well in the near future. However, other clinical trials are on the way to use alternative vaccination procedures.

Neuroblastoma, glioma and melanoma

This link shows that the FDA has accepted engineered oncolytic herpes virus (engineered to secrete GM-CSF) as a treatment against melanoma. Other approaches with engineered bacteria can affect neuroblastoma and glioma.

Survival data using oncolytic viruses for cancer treatment

Cancer researchers have completed a number of smaller clinical trials at this point. One of them describes end stage melanoma (stage III and IV) where the only treatment was with the oncolytic virus T‐Vec. The overall response rate compared to the control, which was only 5.7%, the experimental group with T-Vec was 26.4%. This is considered a good response rate given that we are dealing with end stage melanoma patients.

Mechanism of how oncolytic viruses stimulate the immune system to overcome various cancers

As mentioned above oncolytic viruses multiply in the cancer, once they have been incorporated. This leads to cancer cell death. It exposes the dead cancer tissue to the immune system. What helps in the process is that inhibitory proteins from the cancer cells that used to inhibit the immune system are no longer provided by the dead cancer cells. The end result is that the immune system mounts a formidable response against the cancer cells through killer T cells. This immune response also affects remote metastases of the same histological cancer type. This review article summarizes how oncolytic viruses work for cancer cell destruction and how this method can be combined with other treatment modalities.

The Use Of Oncolytic Viruses For Cancer Treatment

The Use Of Oncolytic Viruses For Cancer Treatment


Currently various cancer centers are involved with clinical trials in humans to test the power of oncolytic viruses. What cancer researchers have learnt is that oncolytic viruses are a useful tool to kill cancer cells. But the immune system of cancer patients is in a suppressed state. Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a medication that will stimulate the immune system by stimulating killer T cells to destroy cancer cells. The combined effect of killing cancer cells with oncolytic viruses and stimulating the immune system is the big news. This has been the breakthrough that cancer researchers have been waiting for. Now several clinical trials are on the way where survival rates for cancer patients given the new combination therapy are assessed.

Oncolytic virus therapy here to stay

It is a treatment which is no longer a thought model with animal experiments. Well known medical centers are using it in patients, and as the results become more obvious, it will very likely become a new treatment modality for cancer.


Obesity Fuels Cancer Development

A recent review by the American Cancer Society found that obesity fuels cancer development. As a matter of fact, what the researchers found was that younger millennials are more in danger of both getting obese and of getting obesity related cancers. Also, the rates of baby boomers with respect to obesity-related cancer were much lower than rates from millennials.

Results of the study showing obesity fuels cancer development

In like manner, as the summary by CNN shows, there is an increase of obesity and also an increase of various cancers of the population of millennials versus the same age group among baby boomers. As an illustration, take pancreatic cancer, one of the obesity related cancers. Normally it occurs in people above the age of 65. Here is the increase of frequencies according to age group:

Ages 25 to 29: 4.34% increase.

People aged 30 to 34: 2.47% increase.

Age bracket 35 to 39: 1.31% increase.

Those aged 40 to 44 years: 0.72% increase.

With this in mind you can see clearly that the younger age group is at a higher risk for developing pancreatic cancer. Certainly, the problem is that obesity in children has become more rampant and this has led to early obesity by the age of 35. The other side of the coin in this case is an increased pancreatic cancer rate.

Other cancers that are obesity-related

Indeed, 6 out of 12 obesity related cancers have shown an increase in frequency because of increasing obesity. These cancers are: multiple myeloma, colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, gallbladder, kidney, and pancreatic cancer.

Notably, people born around 1985 had a higher rate of multiple myeloma and kidney cancer than people born around 1950. Multiple myeloma was 1.59-fold higher and kidney cancer 4.91-fold higher in the group of people born around 1985 in comparison to people born around 1950.

Cancer associated with obesity, but may not be caused by obesity

MD Anderson Cancer Center’s Dr. George Chang, who was not associated with the analysis cautioned: “The study was not set up to establish causation. We know there are many factors that have an association with both obesity and cancer, such as lack of exercise and poor diet. How much each of those factors contribute to cancer is less clear.” Specifically, the study found that the rate of obesity-related cancers in millennials now is about double the rate of what it was in baby-boomers at the same age.

Discussion of the obesity and cancer problem

  1. First of all, obesity is now starting in childhood, teenagers and young adults. 5 of the 6 obesity related cancers (colorectal, uterine, gallbladder, kidney and pancreatic cancer) have increased in the younger population. These require mostly surgery and according to Dr. Chang, who is an oncological surgeon, complication rates are higher among obese patients. Dr. Chang added that chances are also that complications will be more severe.
  2. Secondly, we need government-sponsored programs to reverse the obesity trend. This should include changing the diet from the Standard American diet (essentially junk food) to a Mediterranean diet. There should be an elimination of sugar and starchy foods or the use should be just a bare minimum. Reducing or even eliminating red meat is definitely necessary. The WHO has determined that beef, pork and lamb are causing cancer, because they contain weak carcinogens.  Coupled with this is the necessity to initiated regular exercise programs.
  3. Thirdly, fatty tissue in obese patients release growth factors and proteins that function as hormone-like factors stimulating cell growth. These factors stimulate any carcinogenic process. Researchers are still actively working on analyzing this process further.
Obesity Fuels Cancer Development

Obesity Fuels Cancer Development


Childhood obesity has already had the result that obesity-related cancers (multiple myeloma, colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, gallbladder, kidney, and pancreatic cancer) occur at a younger age and more frequently. The cancer rate among obese millennials now is already double the number of what the baby-boomers was at the same age. The key is to treat obesity aggressively with regular fitness programs and with a major diet shift. We know what caused the obesity wave. It is overconsumption of sugar, junk foods, starchy foods, processed foods and fat overuse.

A major change in diet

This means the kids need to cut out sugar. An alternative is to sweeten only with stevia, if they need a sweet taste. They also need to cut out starchy foods like potatoes, pasta, rice, bread and processed food. Processed food contains a lot of sugar and gluten from wheat. Gluten and sugar both stimulate the appetite center. This is what we want to avoid. What remains is a Mediterranean diet without the junk from the North American diet. You end up eating a lot of vegetables, salads and fruit. Fish is a good protein source, poultry as well. Implementing these changes will show positive results for the health of the entire population, not only the millennials.

Incoming search terms:


Magnesium Is Essential To Life

Magnesium is an important co-factor in many biochemical reactions, so magnesium is essential to life.

Many diverse diseases and cancers can develop from magnesium deficiency. The key is to supplement with magnesium regularly to get more than the government recommended daily allowance (RDA). The RDA for magnesium is 420 mg a day for males and 320 mg a day for females.

In the following I will review the diseases that occur without enough magnesium on board.

A lack of magnesium can cause heart disease

In this 2014 study 7216 men and women aged 55-80 with at high risk for heart attacks were followed for 4.8 years. The risk of death from a heart attack was found to be 34% lower in the high tertile magnesium group when compared to the lower magnesium tertile group.

The protective mechanism of magnesium was found to be as follows. Magnesium counteracts calcium and stabilizes heart rhythms. Magnesium helps to maintain regular heart beats and prevents irregular heart beats (arrhythmias). It also prevents the accumulation of calcium in the coronary artery walls. This in turn is known to lower the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Another study, which was part of the Framingham Heart Study, examined calcification of the heart vessels and the aorta as a function of magnesium intake.

There were 2,695 participants in this study. For each increase of 50 mg of magnesium per day there was a 22% decrease in calcification of the coronary arteries. For the same increase of magnesium the calcification of the body’s main artery, the aorta, fell by 12%. Those with the highest magnesium intake were 58% less likely to have calcifications in their coronary arteries. At the same time they were 34% less likely to have calcifications of the aorta.

In a Korean study a group with low magnesium levels was at a 2.1-fold higher risk of developing coronary artery calcifications compared to a group with normal magnesium levels.

Low magnesium increases your stroke risk

In a 2015 study 4443 subjects, men and women aged 40-75 were followed along.

928 stroke cases developed. The researchers compared the group with the highest 30% of magnesium intake with the lowest 10% of magnesium intake. They had significantly lower blood pressure (7 mm mercury) and lower total cholesterol levels. They also had 41% less strokes than those with low magnesium intake.

In a 2015 study that lasted 24 years the authors investigated 43,000 men.

Those with the highest magnesium supplement had a 26% lower stroke risk. Those with the lowest magnesium intake served as a control.

Among women low magnesium levels were shown to cause 34% more ischemic strokes than in controls.

This study included 32,826 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study. Examiners followed them for 11 years.

It is clear from all these studies that supplementation with magnesium can prevent strokes.

Magnesium protects kidney function

This study examined 13,000 adults for 20 years to see how kidney function was dependent on magnesium levels. Those with the lowest magnesium levels had a 58% higher risk of developing chronic kidney disease. It makes sense when you consider that magnesium is necessary to keep arteries healthy, blood pressure low, and blood sugars stable. When diabetics do not control their blood sugars optimally their kidneys develop kidney disease. The term for this is diabetic nephropathy. In the presence of magnesium supplementation and a low sugar diet people are less likely to develop diabetes or kidney disease.

Magnesium helps blood sugar control

A metaanalysis showed that magnesium supplementation was able to improve blood sugar control. This occurred in both diabetics and borderline non-diabetics within 4 months of supplementing with magnesium.

An important factor in helping control blood sugar is magnesium. Here is an article as an example.

Magnesium good for bones and teeth

Magnesium is important for calcium metabolism and this is helping your bones and teeth to stay strong. The bones store half of the body’s magnesium. Another location for magnesium are in our teeth.

Low levels of magnesium lead to osteoporosis, because one of the two structural components of bone (calcium and magnesium) is missing. In addition low magnesium causes inflammatory cytokines to increase. These break down bones. The Women’s Health Initiative showed that when daily magnesium intake exceeded 422.5 mg their hip and whole-body bone mineral density was significantly greater than in those who consumed less than 206.6 mg daily.

With regard to healthy teeth magnesium is important as it prevents periodontal disease.

This study found that there was less tooth loss and there were healthier periodontal tissues in 4290 subjects between 20 and 80.

Those who took magnesium supplements had healthier teeth.

Migraine sufferers improve with magnesium

A double blind randomized study showed that magnesium supplementation can reduce migraines. The researchers in this trial used 600 mg of magnesium supplementation for 4 weeks.

This reduced migraines by 41.6% in the magnesium group compared to the non-supplemented control group.

Another study showed that both intravenous and oral magnesium are effective in reducing migraine headaches.

Intravenous magnesium showed effects on improving migraines within 15 – 45 minutes. The authors concluded that one could supplement other migraine treatments with both oral and intravenous magnesium.

Too little magnesium can cause cancer

It may surprise you to hear that magnesium can even prevent some cancers. Two cancers have been studied in detail. I will limit my discussion to these two.

Pancreatic cancer

One study found that pancreatic cancer was reduced. Researchers recruited 142,203 men and 334,999 women between 1992 and 2000 and included them in the study. After 11.3 years on average 396 men and 469 women came down with pancreatic cancer. On the male side they found that when the body mass index (BMI) was greater than 25.0 there was a 21% reduction of pancreatic cancer for every 100 mg of added magnesium per day. There were a lot of smokers on the female side, which interfered with the study as confounding factors undermined statistical validity.

In another study, the US male Health Professionals Follow-up Study was examined after 20 years of follow-up. Those with a BMI of above 25.0 on magnesium supplementation had a reduced risk of pancreatic cancer. The pancreatic cancer rate in the higher magnesium group was 33% lower than in the lower magnesium group. The higher group consumed 423 mg of magnesium daily, the lower group 281 mg per day. It is significant that in both studies it was the heavier patients who came down with pancreatic cancer. It is common knowledge that obesity is a pancreatic risk factor.

Colorectal cancer

A study done on Japanese men showed that magnesium could protect them significantly from colon cancer.

Men who consumed the highest amount of magnesium developed 52% less colon cancer over 7.9 years. Researchers compared them to the group with the lowest 20% intake of magnesium. The women in this study did not reach statistical significance.

A study from the Netherlands examined colon cancer in patients. They found that only in patients with a BMI of greater than 25.0 magnesium did have protective effects. For every 100 mg of magnesium per day increase there was a 19% reduction of colon polyps. And there was also a 12% reduction of colorectal cancer for every 100 mg increase of magnesium per day.

Magnesium plays an important role in genome stability, DNA maintenance and repair. It also prevents chronic inflammation and reduces insulin resistance, all factors contributing to cancer reduction.

Live longer with magnesium

Consider that magnesium is the fourth most common mineral in the body. Add to this that magnesium is a co-factor of more than 300 enzymes in the body. Magnesium is an important co-factor in the conversion of chemical energy from food that we ingest. Magnesium is regulating blood sugar, blood vessel health and our brain electrical activity. 50% of our stored magnesium is located in our bones, which helps the strength and integrity of them.

Because of the distribution of the enzymes to which magnesium is a co-factor, virtually every cell in the body depends on our regular intake of magnesium.

Magnesium deficiency develops in older age

Since the 1950’s soils have lost magnesium where farmers grow vegetables and raise fruit trees. We simply do not get enough magnesium from food.

But chelated magnesium is freely available in health food stores. Take 250 mg twice per day, and you will have enough.

Because our metabolism slows down, there is a critical age where magnesium deficiency becomes more obvious than when we are younger. By the age of 70 there are 80% of men and 70% of women who do not get the minimum of magnesium-required amount they should get (350 mg for men and 265 mg for women).

Proton pump inhibitors lowering magnesium levels

At this age many people are on multiple drugs. For many proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are used to suppress acid production in the stomach. PPI’s have been associated with low magnesium blood levels. This link explains that when a patient takes PPI’s the total time of taking the medication should not exceed 1 year.

Low magnesium levels accelerate the aging process on a cellular level. Low magnesium levels increase senescent cells that can no longer multiply. Some of them could cause the development of cancer. These senescent cells also can no longer contribute to the immune system. This causes more infections with an adverse outcome.

Remember to take chelated magnesium capsules or tablets 250 mg twice per day and you will be protected from low magnesium levels in your body.

Here is why we live longer with magnesium supplementation

Our blood vessels will not calcify as early; they keep elastic for longer, preventing high blood pressure. Our kidneys will function longer with magnesium, preventing end-stage kidney disease. We need our kidneys to detoxify our system! More than 300 enzymatic reactions all over our body help that we have more energy and also help to prevent cancer. When there are fewer strokes and less heart attacks this helps reduce mortality. Magnesium supplementation helps to lessen the risk for Alzheimer’s disease and also reduces insulin resistance. Researchers have shown that this prevents Alzheimer’s disease.

The bottom line is we live longer and healthier; that is the meaning of longevity.

Magnesium Is Essential To Life

Magnesium Is Essential To Life


Magnesium is a key essential mineral. It balances calcium in the body and participates in many enzymatic reactions in the body as a cofactor. As long as we have enough of this mineral we won’t notice anything. It is with magnesium deficiency that things go haywire. Heart disease or a stroke could affect you . You could get kidney disease. And you could even get pancreatic cancer or colorectal cancer. If this is not enough, magnesium deficiency can cause diabetes, osteoporosis and bad teeth. You may suddenly die with no obvious cause. But, if balance your your magnesium blood level by taking regular supplements, you will carry on living and eliminate a lot of health problems.


Processed Meat Causes Cancer

A report from the World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that processed meat causes cancer. The report also stated that to a lesser degree red meat is also cancer causing. Overall there are 34,000 people per year worldwide who die from cancers that are related to the consumption of processed foods. They are mainly colorectal cancers, pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

Seeing deaths from processed meat in perspective

When you relate the 34,000 processed food related cancers to all of the 8.2 million cancer deaths per year worldwide, the cancer numbers related to processed food amount to only 0.41 % of all the cancer deaths in the world, which is a very small percentage. In comparison to these numbers smoking as a cause of cancer is responsible for the death of 1 million people per year. Furthermore, there are 600,000 deaths due to drinking alcohol, and 200,000 deaths due to breathing polluted air. Of course it has to be emphasized that it is important to avoid cancer causes wherever possible!

Nevertheless we are talking about preventative deaths and the public should be informed about what the risks are due to consuming processed meats, cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol and breathing polluted air.

Pancreatic cancer study

A large multi-ethnic study analyzed data from 190,545 men and women at the Cancer Research Center at the University of Hawaii. In an average follow-up time of 7 years there were 482 incidents of pancreatic cancer, and it became obvious that processed meats play a role in the increase of pancreatic cancer. After taking other risk factors into consideration like a positive family history, age, smoking and diabetes mellitus, those patients who consumed the largest amount of processed meats had a 67% increased risk for pancreatic cancer as opposed to those who had the lowest intake of these foods. A diet rich in red meats increased the pancreatic cancer risk by about 50%.

Alternatives to red meat

Poultry, fish, dairy products and egg intake showed no pancreatic cancer risk factor, nor did it matter how much fat, saturated fat or cholesterol was consumed over the 7 year observation period.

The lead investigator of the study, Dr. Ute Noethlings, observed that the risk increase is a consequence of meat processing. The main culprit would very likely be carcinogenic substances which are used in processed meat production.

Too much red meat

Grain fed or corn fed and antibiotic treated regular beef changes the gut bacteria and can cause superbugs. The change of the gut flora can lead to inflammation in the gut lining and a condition called “leaky gut syndrome”. We carry almost 2 pounds of gut bacteria in us at any given time. Residual antibiotics from regular beef and chicken reduce that amount and change the composition of our gut flora.

Adopt sensible nutrition

Consuming regular beef will change your liver metabolism and lead to accelerated hardening of the arteries. This in turn causes deadly heart attacks and strokes. On the other hand, grass fed beef or organic beef do not have the same effect. To prevent leaky gut syndrome, heart attacks and strokes from developing you can also take probiotics every day, which should include these two species: Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidus. This keeps your gut flora stable and does not allow your food to undermine your health. But this does not mean that you pop a supplement, and you can blissfully ignore sensible nutrition!

Red meat can cause heart attacks in diabetics

Red meat is one of the sources of protein, but doctors from the Harvard School of Public Health reported in the January edition of Diabetes Care, that a type 2 diabetes diet should go easy on red meat.

Type 2 diabetics are at risk for subsequent coronary heart disease (CHD), and intake of iron rich food was significantly associated with a greater risk of fatal CHD. The results come from a prospective study of 6,161 women from the Nurses’ Health Study.

Diabetes more common when diet contains red meat

All of these patients reported a diagnosis of adult onset diabetes, and they were followed between 1980 through 2000. This amounts to an impressive 54,455 person-years follow-up. Attention was paid to the food questionnaires, which were monitored for the consumption of iron and red meat. Red meat consists of beef, pork or lamb as a main dish. Red meat is also in beef in roast beef sandwiches and mixed dishes, hamburger, hot dog, processed meat and bacon. The examiners of the study also took note  of other nutrients such as seafood and poultry.
Women with diabetes who ate the most iron in the form of heme found in red meats had a 50% increased risk of total coronary heart disease as compared to those with the lowest intake. The risk ratio with women was more obvious for postmenopausal women when compared with premenopausal women .

Western diet with red meat and processed meat causes higher heart attack and cancer rates

Lean beef may be a good protein food to the average population. But type 2 diabetics might choose to cut back on red meat and processed red meat sources. They can replace red meat with a heart-friendlier choice. Fresh seafood, rich in omega -3 fatty acids, would rank high on the list of a healthy eating plan.

Another prospective study of 72,113 women over 18 years found a definitive relationship between dietary patterns and cancer and heart attacks. A prudent diet with high intakes of vegetables, fruit, legumes, fish, poultry, and whole grains had a very low cancer and heart attack rate. Conversely a Western diet consisting of high intakes of red meat, processed meat, refined grains, French fries, and sweets/desserts led to a higher cardiovascular mortality risk of 22% and a higher cancer mortality risk of 16%.

Processed Meat Causes Cancer

Processed Meat Causes Cancer


The World Health Organization announced that processed food is carcinogenic. This piece of news is not entirely new. Hopefully it will work its way into the consciousness of the population at large. Meat processors producing sausages, ham and other processed meat varieties will not stop advertising their products. They advertise in a way to make them sound tasty and delicious for the consumer. Colorful images seduce the prospective buyer. These images make you drool. But this is a make-believe world in the art of commercials. In the end it is the consumer who has to make a decision which food is tasty and also beneficial.

Healthy food leads to healthy people

Customers need to make the choice for health and stop buying foods that border to being nutritionally hazardous products. This is when we will see a true change in health statistics. But while you are thinking about changes, do not forget to quit smoking. Also, cut down your alcohol consumption and perhaps, if possible move to a less polluted area. All of that will help to reduce mortality rates!

More info about pancreatic cancer: Causes of cancer of the pancreas.

Incoming search terms:


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.


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:

Last edited Nov. 7, 2014

Incoming search terms:


Pollution And Soaring Lung Cancer Rates

In early 1900 lung cancer was unheard of. This was before the cigarette industry started to mass-produce and market cigarettes.

However, ever since the arrival of the industrial revolution air quality has suffered. In China poor air quality has now reached such enormous values that the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has labeled poor air quality as one of the causes of lung cancer.

When you rank countries by average air pollution measurements, one sees that Europe, the US and South America overall have good ratings, whereas the Middle Eastern countries, China and India have poorer ratings.

However, when the pollution index of cities where the population is much denser than in the countries at large, are tabulated a much different picture emerges: Cities in Iran, India and Pakistan stand out as particularly bad followed by cities in China, Eastern Europe, Paris, London, Berlin, cities in California (the populous State), Chicago and New York.

Pollution does not stay local, but travels through the stratosphere around the globe. The result is that now 10 to 15% of lung cancer in the US occurs in patients who never smoked. This translates into 16,000 to 24,000 deaths annually of never-smokers in the US.

In certain cities such as Beijing the lung cancer rates have doubled in 9 years between 2002 and 2011. As this article shows lung cancer in never smokers can be caused from exposure to radon, to second-hand tobacco smoke, and other indoor air pollutants can also cause such cancers. But the outdoor air quality has been a problem ever since the industrial revolution, which started around Europe in the 1800’s and first part of the1900’s. In the latter half of the 1900’s much of the industrial wave has migrated to the Middle East, to India and China. But the air quality of the whole world has suffered as the jet stream and other air currents carry pollution in the stratosphere all around the globe.

Pollution And Soaring Lung Cancer Rates

Pollution And Soaring Lung Cancer Rates

History of pollution in various regions

1. In Germany’s  Ruhr district (“Ruhrgebiet”) in North Rhine-Westphalia, a highly populated industrial area, pollution reached a peak in the late 1950’s. From 1963 onward many of the coal mines, iron ore mines and other mineral mines closed down. 50 years ago the German Chancellor, Willy Brand was concerned about the environment and promised that blue skies would return to the Ruhr district again.  A special task force was initiated and maximally allowable limits were established for industries’ pollution emissions and enforced by the German government. Government and industry were co-operating in developing anti-pollution measures, which have cleared up a lot of the pollution since. With regard to car emissions lead free gasoline was introduced and carburetors ensured more complete burning of exhaust gases. This is now common and accepted anywhere except for diesel fume exhaust, which nobody wants to address despite proven carcinogenicity.

Now Germany is one of the leaders in green technology, which is also important for tourism.

2. England has its own legacy of pollution in soil and air from the industrial revolution. The soil of moorland, which soaked up acid rain for decades, is more acidy than lemon juice and it will take a long time despite industrial complexes having closed long time ago, before the soil quality will be returned to normal.

3. Hamilton in Ontario/Canada has had a longstanding pollution problem, which I witnessed from 1976 until my departure in 1978. It is well known that Stelco, the local steel plant downtown Hamilton is sending polluting emissions into the air. In 1976 a vising professor from Australia gave an interesting talk about a study that was done at that time regarding the risk of developing bronchogenic carcinoma (a synonym for lung cancer) in the immediate surroundings of the Stelco plant. He said that this was one of the first studies to show that the distance of people’s houses from the source of pollution mattered as that determined how concentrated the air pollution was (the closer the more polluted the air). This  affected cancer rates: they were much higher in the immediate surrounding of Stelco when compared to the average rate in the rest of Hamilton. This difference was very significant within a radius of 1 kilometer (= 0.62 miles) from the Stelco plant.

Just in May of 2013 the local cancer agency of Hamilton announced that the lung cancer rate in Hamilton was higher than elsewhere in Ontario because of a combination of poor air quality and of a higher percentage of people smoking. Then in August 2013 the city of Hamilton announced a new air pollution bylaw for stricter pollution measures to improve the air quality in the downtown area. It is just a pity that Hamiltonians had to wait until 2013 before the city approved an anti-pollution bylaw that could have been passed 50 years earlier like in Germany’s Ruhr district!

4. In 2008 Pittsburg, a former steel manufacturer town like Hamilton, Ont. outdid Los Angeles with regard to small particle air pollution.

Lung cancer prevention by the authorities

As mentioned before up o15% of lung cancer is caused by environmental exposure. So, we ourselves can only prevent 85% of lung cancer by not smoking and not exposing ourselves to industrial emissions or to smoke from incense. However, in many cities around the world you will get exposed to air pollutants that are well above the safe limits, so the risk of getting lung cancer from just breathing the air there can be much higher than in rural areas where there is no industry.

Technologies to control air pollution are widely available. We need to exert pressure on politicians to show leadership around the world. Government regulations to lower emission rates need to be put into place and inspectors need to ensure the rules and regulations are adhered to. Without reducing emissions of cancer producing gases and chemicals right at the source (open burning of cuttings in orchards or burning cut trees), cutting emissions of cars, planes, ships, diesel cars, locomotives, electric generator plants etc. the air quality will not improve. Despite some costs involved industry, governments and individuals have to work together to make clean air happen.

The residents of those countries that have low pollution values will not benefit, if pollution continues to occur in other parts of the world as it just travels in the stratosphere around the globe until it arrives right here at home! We need an international pollution police. Satellites can be used to monitor where pollution occurs and this can be followed up through the local regulatory bodies with penalties and remedial actions.

What can I do personally to prevent lung cancer?

1.The most obvious step is to quit smoking and ask smokers who come to your place to smoke outside (not in your home).

2.Consider moving away from the city, if the air quality is unacceptable to a place where there is low air pollution.

3.Vitamin D3 has been shown to prevent colorectal cancer, but as there are vitamin D receptors found on the surface of various cells in tissue around the body including the lungs, many researchers feel that this vitamin in higher doses (2000 IU to 5000 IU) has probably a wider applicability in preventing cancers, even lung cancer.

4.Cutting out sugar and adopting a Mediterranean type diet is a prudent thing to do; also cutting down your calories to the maintenance you need (mildly ketogenic diet). If you bought body composition scales, it would display what your daily calorie consumption is and you should not exceed this, or else you’ll gain weight. An aging man who is overweight will experience hormone changes as fat is being metabolized and the enzyme aromatase contained in fatty tissue will turn male hormones (testosterone, DHT, androstenedione) into estrogen. Estrogen (particularly estradiol) is a known carcinogen that has been proven to cause breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men. However lung cancer is also being promoted in women by estrogen as discussed in this link. In men one needs to remember that lung cells have estrogen receptors and there is concern in aging men with higher estradiol levels that this can promote cell divisions in existing lung cancer. So, it is important to maintain a normal body mass index between 21 and 24 (well below 25.0 and well above 18.5, which are the official accepted limits). This way there is no problem with insulin resistance (too high an insulin level), and other metabolic substances (cytokines, growth hormone like factors and tumor necrosis factor-alpha from body fat) that are cancer promoting.

5. If testosterone deficiency is present, which is common in older men, testosterone will have to be replaced with bioidentical hormones. It is a myth that testosterone would cause prostate cancer. Testosterone in males is necessary to maintain a normal metabolism including the immune system, which then can fight lung cancer and any other cancers.

6. Exercise and reducing beef consumption are also often mentioned in terms of preventing lung cancer.

7. Here are several recommendations from the LifeExtension Foundation that I found very useful in terms of lung cancer prevention. This link shows that antioxidant vitamins such as vitamin C, alpha tocopherol, the minerals selenium and zinc are also helping to reduce the lung cancer rate. Drinking green tea has also been shown to be effective in a dose-response curve manner (more tea protecting more from lung cancer). Vitamin B12 and folate have been shown to reduce abnormal bronchial cell growth in smokers as shown by repeat bronchoscopy studies.

8. Those who have been smokers in the past and those who have been around heavy smokers for more than 10 years in the past should consider having a preventative bronchoscopy done by a lung specialist (also called respirologist or pulmonologists). This way any suspicious areas with precancerous lesions can be biopsied during the procedure and attended to.

Hopeful research for new lung cancer treatments

Lung cancer is a disease that is best prevented. Once a person gets lung cancer, the prognosis is still very poor. However, cancer researchers are getting close to newer treatments involving genetically modified T-cells (killer cells) as was recently achieved for leukemia. Similar research is going on regarding ovarian cancer, melanoma, lung cancer and pancreatic cancer.

More information about lung cancer:


It is not acceptable to let pollution take its course , the way politicians around the globe have handled this in the past 6 decades with a few notable exceptions mentioned. We all suffer a higher risk of getting lung cancer, even if we have been life-long non-smokers. Right now up to 15% of lung cancer in most populations are of this type. However, in Beijing this number is already much higher. The technology is available; Germany has led the way in the Ruhr district in the 1960’s and beyond. In my opinion the G8 meetings should have this high on their agendas and send technological aid to all the regions that have higher than the average world pollution index under the mandate of a special UN commission. This should be supported by the major industrial players with the knowledge that they will prevent the death of millions of potential consumers down the road, which will on the long-term pay off the relatively minor investment of installing pollution controls, before lung cancer levels rise even more.

Last edited Nov. 7, 2014


Pancreatic Cancer And Processed Meats

A large multi-ethnic study analyzed data from 190,545 men and women at the Cancer Research Center at the University of Hawaii. In an average follow-up time of 7 years there were 482 incidents of pancreatic cancer, and it became obvious that processed meats play a role in the increase of pancreatic cancer. After taking other risk factors into consideration like a positive family history, age, smoking and diabetes mellitus, those patients who consumed the largest amount of processed meats had a 67% increased risk for pancreatic cancer as opposed to those who had the lowest intake of these foods. A diet rich in red meats increased the risk by about 50%.

Poultry, fish, dairy products and egg intake showed no pancreatic cancer risk factor, nor did it matter how much fat, saturated fat or cholesterol was consumed over the 7 year observation period.

The lead investigator of the study, Dr. Ute Noethlings, observes that the risk increase is a consequence of the meat preparation with carcinogens. The main culprit would very likely be sodium nitrite, which is a preservative that also enhances the meat color.

Pancreatic Cancer And Processed Meats

Pancreatic Cancer And Processed Meats

For the consumer it means taking a critical look at processed meats before picking up sausages with your next shopping. Read the labels, avoid sodium nitrite. Your pancreas will thank you for it!

More information on pancreatic cancer:

Reference: The Medical Post, May 17, 2005, page 50

Last edited October 28, 2014