ANOTHER INSTANCE OF
Overdiagnosis is an expected part of any screening program..... Part of a recent statement by the American College of Radiology (ACR)
Numerous diagnostic tests, particularly those involving ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, produce false positive results. This is one reason that the old "ANNUAL PHYSICAL" has gone the way of the typewriter and the dodo bird -- way too many false positives ("False Positives" are tests that show you have something wrong with you, when, in fact, you do not). The latest of these studies involves CANCER ---- most particularity Lung Cancer.
A recent study at Duke University Medical Center showed that nearly 1 in 5 cases of Lung Cancer, the CT Scan picked up slow-growing tumors that would not have affected the patient in their lifetime. When questioned about this rate of what is known is the business as "OVERDIAGNOSIS & OVERTREATMENT", the spokespersons for various physicians groups said that these rates were about what they would expect. In other words, this is a common problem.
The Duke Study, published in the most recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine concluded that, "These overdiagnosis cases represent an important potential harm of screening because they incur additional cost, anxiety, and morbidity associated with cancer treatment". Good idea to be aware of this information if you are ever diagnosed with cancer or are a smoker. By the way, smokers in the "High Risk" category are being advised to have an annual CT.
THE SUGAR / CANCER / OBESITY LINK
The study, done at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health in Minneapolis, and published in the latest issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention, showed that the rate of estrogen-dependent Endometrial Cancer (cancer that forms in the tissue lining the uterus) nearly doubled (a whopping 78% increase) in women drinking four or more sweetened drinks a week (that would be one every other day). Listen to what Charles Bankhead wrote on this subject in Friday's issue of MedPage Today.
"Consumption of sugar-containing drinks has risen in parallel to the prevalence of obesity in the U. S., offering one potential explanation for sugar's association with endometrial cancer, which occurs disproportionately in obese women. In developed nations, obesity is associated with at least half of type I [estrogen-dependent] endometrial cancers. Epidemiologic studies have linked higher intake of sugar-sweetened drinks to higher risks of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Collectively, available evidence provides biologic plausibility for sugar-sweetened drink consumption as a contributing factor in endometrial cancer..... The finding that sugar-sweetened drinks might contribute to the most common type of endometrial cancer is not particularly surprising, given the cancer's association with obesity"
Listen folks; nearly ALL DISEASES start the same way. Once you begin to understand this, you can begin to understand why OBESITY is so intimately linked to so many different chronic illnesses, and why dietary changes are so critical to your regaining your health. What diet do I recommend? That's easy. For the vast majority of you; the PALEO DIET is the way to go. Don't simply shrug it off. Click on the link, do a little bit of research, and learn why going Paleo might not simply solve your weight issues, but your INFLAMMATORY HEALTH ISSUES as well.
HEADLINES TOUT NEW CHEMOTHERAPY COMBINATION EXTENDS LIFE IN THOSE WITH PANCREATIC CANCER
This terrible form of cancer hits pretty close to home because our neighbor, a woman who was like a grandmother to my kids, died of it almost 7 years ago. Wikipedia, using a host of stats cherry-picked from a wide array of the latest peer-reviewed research had this to say concerning Pancreatic Cancer.
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and the eighth worldwide. Pancreatic cancer has an extremely poor prognosis: for all stages combined, the 1- and 5-year relative survival rates are 25% and 6%, respectively; for local disease the 5-year survival is approximately 15% while the median survival for locally advanced and for metastatic disease, which collectively represent over 80% of individuals, is about 10 and 6 months respectively. Individuals vary, however - some are only diagnosed when they are already terminally ill and therefore only have a few days or weeks. Men are 30% more likely to get pancreatic cancer than are women. Early pancreatic cancer often does not cause symptoms, and the later symptoms are usually nonspecific and varied. Therefore, pancreatic cancer is often not diagnosed until it is advanced.
Although there are some symptoms sometimes seen with this problem (abdominal pain, heartburn, nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, unexplained weight loss, SUGAR DYSREGULATION PROBLEMS, and others), they are vague. Oftentimes, the first real symptom of Pancreatic Cancer is that you simply turn yellow (jaundice). According to lead investigator of the MPACT study (Dr. Daniel Von Hoff of the Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix Arizona), this new drug combination increases survival rates by a whopping 17 to 23%. But what does this statistic really mean? It means that on average, the survival was about 50 days longer for the double chemo group than for the single chemo group (3.7 months to 5.5 months respectively). But, as you might imagine, the side effects of the double chemo were worse ---- particularly the NEUROPATHY.
This study reminded me of the study done a couple of years ago on a drug that was approved by the FDA for PROSTATE CANCER. Only if you work for the government or a Pharmaceutical Company could you ever report such terrible results with great gusto ---- and get paid big bucks for doing so. But then again; the treatment of Cancer is certainly a PARADOX here in the United States! If you want to learn more about stopping cancer before it strikes, READ THIS. GUT HEALTH is also a great starting point.
TRUE OR FALSE
SUGAR FEEDS CANCER?
Should you avoid sugar? Our expert says no. The website of renowned cancer hospital in Houston, Texas, MD Anderson
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth. Mayo Clinic's website
MYTH: Cancer loves sugar. Many people with cancer wonder if they should stop eating sugar because they have heard sugar feeds cancer growth. However, there is no conclusive evidence that proves eating sugar will make cancer grow and spread more quickly. All cells in the body, both healthy cells and cancer cells, depend on sugar (glucose) to grow and function. However, providing cancer cells with sugar won't speed up their growth, just as cutting out sugar completely won’t slow down their growth. From Cancer.net
Traditional therapies, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, work. The evidence is the millions of cancer survivors in the United States today who are alive because of these therapies.... Moderation is key. As part of a balanced diet, sugar, salt, milk, coffee, tea, meat, and chocolate --- the foods the “Update” calls into question --- are all safe choices. The Website of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine as they refute a hoax email telling people that sugar feeds cancer
Did you realize that each and every day of your life is a full-blown battle with cancer? This is true whether you realize it or not. We all have cells, which, for any number of reasons, go rogue and become cancerous (HERE). Fortunately we have an Immune System that is so complex and amazing that it nearly defies description (HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE). Not that people should never have their cancer treated by mainstream medicine (desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures), but when we have mainstream medicine giving us the kind of information / advice found in the quotes above, it produces potentially dangerous (or even deadly) results ---- especially for America's tens of millions of raging SUGAR / CARB ADDICTS.
Fortunately there are lots of mainstream researchers whose research is tempered by common sense. The August 2009 issue of the medical journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, featured one such study. Doctor Don Ayer, a professor in the Department of Oncological Sciences, and researcher for the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, had this to say on the topic. "It's been known since 1923 that tumor cells use a lot more glucose than normal cells. Our research helps show how this process takes place, and how it might be stopped to control tumor growth". Truthfully, thanks to the brilliant German scientist, DR OTTO WARBURG, I could show you hundreds of similar statements from mainstream medicine (as well as why the KETOGENIC DIET is the hottest thing going as far as cancer diets are concerned). So why is it that some of the biggest and 'best' cancer treatment centers in America continue to spout off about sugar not being a concern as far as cancer is concerned? You already know the answer to this one. It's all about that green stuff that rhymes with honey.
Do not under any circumstances buy into the notion that sugar does not somehow feed cancer! Just the other day, a study was published in the August issue of Cell showing us one more reason to avoid the sugar bowl and cookie jar. Cancerous fruit flies put on a HIGH SUGAR DIET showed INSULIN RESISTANCE, tumors growing much larger than normal, as well as cancerous metastasis to multiple sites throughout the body. Lead researcher, Dr. Ross Cagan of New York City's Icahn / Mt. Sinai School of Medicine said, "Our study shows that sugar activates oncogenes in the tumor, which then promote insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exorbitant glucose levels in the blood pour into the tumor, having nowhere else to go in the insulin-resistant body." He went on to say that, "The tumors just went crazy. When the flies were on a normal diet the tumors could barely be seen, but as soon as the sugar was introduced they were everywhere". I don't care who you are; that's freaky, and it's knowledge you could be / should be leveraging whether you have cancer or not.
JACKING WITH BLOOD SUGAR does a host of bad things in your body. In fact, sugar and junk carb consumption is being linked to virtually every disease process facing modern man. So why should we be surprised when it comes to Cancer? This is doubly true in light of Dr. Otto Warburg's research. Remember him? He's the MD / Ph.D who won 1931's Nobel Prize for Medicine. What did he do to earn this prestigious honor? He figured out that sugar is Cancer's food-of-choice (the body ferments sugar for energy). It's why the latest research is touting ketogenic diets as not only cancer-protective, but cancer-starving if you've already been diagnosed.
If you are interested in preventing cancer, or are actively battling cancer, I would strongly suggest that you avoid sugar like the plague. A simple word of advice: Do not take any doctor's word for anything (including mine). With today's information technology at your fingertips, you no longer have to buy into the BS that the biggest names in the "Cancer Industry" are selling. If you are willing to step out of that box just a little bit, you'll increase your chances of living a long and productive life. To see a generic protocol for helping address chronic illness and chronic pain, via diminishing SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION, take a look AT THIS POST.
FISH OIL INCREASES CHANCES OF
"We've shown once again that use of nutritional supplements may be harmful." Dr. Alan Kristal, member of the Fred Hutch Public Health Sciences Division and author of the recent paper in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute touting a the relationship between Omega-3's and Prostate Cancer.
Back in 2011, a study was published by (yes, you guessed it) the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center of Seattle, Washington. The study talked about the link between aggressive Prostate Cancer and Fish Oil / Omega-3's. Interestingly enough, that particular study showed not only that Omega-3's were tied to increased levels of Prostate Cancer, but that TRANS FATS were supposedly protective against Prostate Cancer. If you understand anything at all about the Immune System chemicals that we collectively refer to as INFLAMMATION and their relationship to both Trans Fats and CANCER, you are already sensing that something might be rotten in Denmark.
All of this begs the question about previous research on Omega-3's and Fish Oil Supplements. Are decades of previous research wrong? Are Omega-3 Fatty Acids just a bunch of hype? What is the truth? As always, I recommend that you do your own research and never take anything that any physician tell you (self included) as factual without first checking it out for yourself. Question everything you read or hear and you'll wind up healthier (and wealthier) for it!
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE RESEARCH
- SWEDISH STUDY: The June 2001 issue of the Lancet, published a study that followed nearly 6,300 men for 30 years. Conclusions? "Men who ate no fish had a two-fold to three-fold higher frequency of prostate cancer than those who ate moderate or high amounts did. Our results suggest that fish consumption could be associated with decreased risk of prostate cancer."
- NEW ZEALAND STUDY: The 1999 issue of the British Journal of Cancer compared 317 men with Prostate Cancer to a control group of 480 age-matched men from the same community. Conclusions? "A reduced risk of prostate cancer [is] associated with dietary fish oils". The Prostate Cancer reduction in this study was nearly 40% in the Fish Oil group.
- JAPANESE / BRAZILIAN STUDY: The September 1999 issue of Cancer Science followed 50 men from each of 5 different areas of Japan, as well as 50 men from Sao Paulo, Brazil (300 total). Conclusions? "The frequency of total fish intake corresponded to serum Omega-3 Fatty Acid composition. The relationship between cancer mortality and serum Omega-3 Fatty Acid levels was not clear, though an inverse association between prostate cancer and serum Omega-3 Fatty Acid levels appeared to exist." (in other words, more Omega-3's in the blood, less Cancer in the Prostate).
When you add it all up, what does all of this prove? I'm not quite sure other than it seems like Omega-3's are only related to Prostate Cancer if you are from the good ole USA. So; in light of what we know about the Cancer / Inflammation relationship, what could possibly be the mechanism via which Omega-3's are 'causing' Prostate Cancer? Hang on to your hats because this is where things start to get interesting.
Could there be something else other than consuming fish or taking Fish Oil Supplements that raises blood serum levels of Omega-3 Fatty Acids? It turns out there is. And this one throws a monkey wrench in the machine, so to speak. It turns out that low fat diets also raise levels of Omega-3's in the blood. In February of 2001, the Journal of Nutrition (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) published a study called, "Total Fat Intake Modifies Plasma Fatty Acid Composition in Humans". The study's conclusions? "The [various Omega-3's] levels were all significantly increased in subjects when they consumed the low fat diet compared to consumption of the high fat diet.". What does this really mean? Let's take a quick look at a couple of different possibilities that prove Omega-3's might not be the menace that Dr. Kristal and his team are making them out to be.
- TOO MANY GRAINS AND SUGARS: The first thing that comes to mind is that if low fat diets, if they played any role at all in this study, tend to come with some serious baggage. Who remembers the crazy Low Fat / No Fat diet recommendations of the 1980's 1990's, and even the 2000's (HERE)? Nothing did more to ruin the health of our country than for our own government to openly declare that dietary fat, and not copious amounts of sugar and / or GRAIN-BASED STARCH is what makes people fat (and sick ---- HERE). The bottom line is that eating a crappy diet while taking Fish Oil Supplements does not get around the fact that you are still eating a crappy diet! If you want to truly deal with the Fatty Acid imbalances in your body, you must first understand that.......
- RATIOS RULE: If you look back at my Fish Oil Page, you will notice that I talk a lot about ratios of Omega-3's to Omega-6's. An optimum ratio of threes to sixes would be 1:1. That might happen if you were marooned on some fabulous tropical island. But in the real world, about the best you can expect is a ratio of 1:3 (maybe 1:2 if you are a total health freak). The problem is that here in America, every study I have ever seen on the subject says that we are eating diets with a ratio closer to 1:25 or even 1:30. Understand that this not only means that we are probably not eating enough Omega Threes, but that we are over-eating Omega Sixes as well. If you really want to fix this ratio (or at least drive it closer to optimal), you'll have to not only increase your intake of Omega-3's, but more importantly, decrease your intake of Omega-6's. Face it --- many people eat a crappy diet and then take some supplements to off-set it ---- including Fish Oil. Not only does this not help fix your ratio problem, odds are that in the process you are probably consuming.........
- POOR QUALITY OMEGA THREE SUPPLEMENTS: If you again look at what I have said on my FISH OIL PAGE, you will notice that I heavily promote only high quality, Pharmaceutical Grade Fish Oil Supplements (and the fact that these must be refrigerated). I am not going to go into detail on this matter here, but I would ask you to check out the link above if you want to understand what constitutes a quality Fish Oil / Omega-3 product. Again, read what I have written in the past. "Not taking Fish Oil is better than taking inferior quality Fish Oil". Again; to understand why, read the link.
What do studies like this recent one really prove? They prove that poor quality Fish Oil Supplements that contain copious amounts of potentially rancid oils, and likely contaminated with known carcinogens such as PCB's, dioxins, MERCURY and other heavy metals; may cause cancer ---- just as you might expect they would. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that in lieu of nearly two decades of research on Omega-3 Fatty Acids from around the world showing that fish or high quality Fish Oil Supplements are actually protective against Prostate Cancer, we now have to watch out for them because they actually cause it. As always, do your own research and make an educated decision regarding this topic.
For more information on Pharmaceutical Grade Fish Oil, including hundreds upon hundreds of studies from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, just visit THIS SITE.
PAIN MEDS CAUSE CANCER
NATURAL ALTERNATIVES TO PAIN MEDICATIONS
INFLAMMATION is a huge problem in America. CANCER, HEART DISEASE, DIABETES, ARTHRITIS, LOW BACK PAIN, as well as a host of others are all classified as 'Inflammatory' problems. It has been thought that anti-inflammatory medications might actually protect people against cancer. Not surprisingly, this is not the case ---- particularly over the long haul. The authors concluded that, "In these large prospective studies of women and men, we found that use of nonaspirin NSAIDs was associated with an elevated risk of RCC (Kidney Cancer), especially among those who took them for a long duration." The question is, how much did these drugs elevate the cancer risk? For those who took them for a decade or longer, their chances of developing RCC went up nearly 300%. Gulp!
This begs the question that I am constantly asked in the office ---- "If anti-inflammatory medications are so bad for me, what natural product can I replace them with?" Truthfully, this is the wrong question to ask. What people are really asking when they ask this question is what nutritional supplement they can take that relieves their pain but allows them to continue living the same self-destructive lifestyle without the consequences. Sorry; it really does not work that way. But here is a short list of things you can do to ward off Inflammation and the pain, dysfunction, disability, and disease associated with it.
- UNDERSTAND INFLAMMATION: Although most people think they know what Inflammation is, they haven't got a clue. HERE is the place to learn about Systemic Inflammation.
- EAT A DIET BASED ON WHOLE FOODS: This one is fairly simple. Eat WHOLE FOODS and avoid processed foods. And as far as antiinflammatory herbs are concerned, THESE BAD BOYS are the cream of the crop.
- CONTROL YOUR BLOOD SUGAR: An ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DIET is one that avoids or limits most GRAINS and CONTROLS BLOOD SUGAR --- something critical for your health even if you have not (yet) been diagnosed with DIABETES.
- DRINK MORE WATER: Although this is seemingly a no-brainer, most people do not drink nearly enough water, while drinking way too much SODA and other beverages. Make sure that you drink THE RIGHT KIND of water as well.
- KNOW YOUR FATS: You must learn to eat good fats, while avoiding TRANS FATS. I would strongly suggest supplementing with PFGO as well. A simple rule of thumb I use is to cook with coconut oil or organically-rendered lard, and use EVOO for salad dressings and the like.
- MAINTAIN A HEALTHY WEIGHT / AVOID THE PITFALLS OF A SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE: HERE is a quick link for going about this the right way.
- AVOID DRUGS AND XENOHORMONES: Drugs kill whether pushed or prescribed (HERE). It's no coincidence that the people I see who take the most drugs are the sickest people I see ---- who take the most drugs. Many would argue that sick people need lots of medications because they're sick. I would argue that for the most part, people need to follow some good advice (like what you just read) and avoid as many medications as possible. A good majority of the time, they're a big part of what is making people sick. DANGEROUS DRUGS. And if you are not yet aware of what XENOHORMONES are all about, just click on the link.
- OTHERS: This list is by no means exhaustive. If you are really struggling with hardcore pain, THIS POST should provide you with some solutions.
CANCER TREATMENT QUESTION
DID YOU EVER WONDER........?
"Enriched [WHITE / BLEACHED] wheat flour, sugar, corn syrup, niacin, water, high fructose corn syrup, vegetable shortening – containing one or more of partially hydrogenated soybean, cottonseed and canola oil, and beef fat, dextrose, whole eggs, modified corn starch, cellulose gum, whey, leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate), salt, cornstarch, corn flour, corn syrup, solids, mono and diglycerides, soy lecithin, polysorbate 60, dextrin, calcium caseinate, sodium stearoyl lactylate, wheat gluten, calcium sulphate, natural and artificial flavors, caramel color, yellow dye No. 5, red dye No. 40"
When a dear friend of ours was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer several years ago, she was told by her cancer doctor (I am loosely quoting here), "I don't really care what you eat; just make sure you don't lose any weight. If it takes Twinkies to do that, it's fine." I am not making this up. When I suggested a couple of WHOLE FOOD NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS, she balked. Her doctor had told her that under no circumstances was she to take any sort of Nutritional Supplement --- it might "react" with the chemo. I have seen this same scenario play out dozens of times over the years --- including Friday, when a patient told me of a recently deceased spouse who spent the last five years of her life and 2 million dollars in misery, without any sort of nutritional guidance whatsoever. ZERO. That, my friends, is criminal.
It does not bother me that people treat cancer with conventional methods. I get it --- sometimes drastic situations call for drastic measures. What is troubling is that far too many people use oncologists who believe that treating cancer is SOLELY A MEDICAL ENDEAVOR (chemo / radiation). How much better could the results be for their patients if physicians understood some of the foundational principles of health and disease (HERE)? This is especially important in light of new information about using the same diet for cancer that is being used to treat neurological conditions, including epilepsy ---- the KETOGENIC DIET. But then again, once you realize that SUGAR FEEDS CANCER, it only makes sense.
DRUG COMPANIES FOCUS ON
NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND CANCER
Hopefully you read the recent post about cancer doctors who are complaining (and rightly so) that 11 of the 12 cancer drugs OK'd by the FDA last year, cost, on average, over $100,000.00 apiece. And as for neurological problems; remember the old saying, "Diamonds are Forever"? The Pharmaceutical Industry realizes that they could change that to "Neurological Diseases are Forever". For them, creating drugs for Neurological Problems makes financial sense. Why create drugs like antibiotics that are prescribed for a week or ten days, when you can create drugs for diseases that are "incurable" --- diseases that people can only hope to "manage"?
And lest we forget; the medical community is doing a poor job of telling people why rates of Neurological Diseases have skyrocketed in recent years. Much of it undoubtedly has to do with the same things that are related to cancer. These would include POOR DIETS, poor lifestyle choices, lack of exercise, stress, etc, etc. But lets go one step further. In case you have not seen it, you may want to check out my recent piece on THE LINK BETWEEN NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES AND GLUTEN.
If cancer and Neurological Disorders are numbers one and two as far as new drugs are concerned, what rounds out the Trifecta? Glad you asked. Drugs for AUTOIMMUNITY, INFLAMMATORY ILLNESS, and the ENDOCRINE SYSTEM. The truth is that until both doctors and patients lose their disconnect between diet and disease, people will continue to get sick in never-before-heard-of numbers, and the drug companies will make out like the bandits they are. Oh, the joys of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE.
MAX GERSON, CHARLOTTE GERSON,
AND THE GERSON INSTITUTE
Max Gerson was born in Germany in 1881. While in medical school, he focused his efforts on using diet to cure his migraine headaches. Having had good results treating himself, he began treating patients using his diet. It was not long before one of Dr. Gerson's patients who was on his "Migraine Diet" realized that it had cured his 'Skin Tuberculosis'. Eventually, Gerson ended up creating a special treatment program for Skin TB at Munich's famed University Hospital using his diet as the foundation of the treatment protocol. Dr. Gerson's diet therapy for Skin TB was so successful that he ended up publishing numerous papers in the day's peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. But the icing on the cake was his experiment on 450 people with Skin TB ---- 446 were completely cured using his Whole Foods diet as their treatment.
It was because of this that Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, sought out Dr. Gerson to help his wife. She had contracted lung TB, and all forms of conventional medical treatment had failed her. Dr. Gerson's diet not only cured her, but ultimately, Dr Schweitzer cured his own TYPE II DIABETES with the same diet. Gerson was eventually eulogized by Schweitzer (he moved to the US in the 1930's).
“…I see in him one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine. Many of his basic ideas have been adopted without having his name connected with them. Yet, he has achieved more than seemed possible under adverse conditions. He leaves a legacy which commands attention and which will assure him his due place. Those whom he has cured will now attest to the truth of his ideas.”
Below is a recent video of Dr. Gerson's 91 year old daughter Charlotte. I love Charlotte because she is passionate about what she is doing, and has obviously practiced what she preaches. Let me ask you a simple question before I leave. Who do you trust more; Max & Charlotte Gerson, or the FDA? If you have followed my blog for very long, you'll quickly realize that the FDA has a serious credibility gap (HERE).
FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTATION AND CANCER
IS THERE A LINK?
These studies, as are virtually all nutritional studies, are performed using Synthetic Supplements. Most likely, they are the same kind of Nutritional Supplements that you are taking. Is there really a difference between Synthetic Nutritional Supplements and Whole Food Supplements? You bet your sweet bippy there is! It is the reason that studies on specific Nutritional Supplements frequently show no benefit (HERE, HERE and HERE are a few examples). Allow me to explain.
Even though all vitamin companies will tout their products as "natural", this is far from the case. The vitamins found in "enriched" foods like the flour mentioned above, are cheap, super high potency, synthetic fractions of what God built into real food. For instance, women get duped into taking really crappy calcium supplements that contain mega amounts of ground up chalk (HERE) ---- and maybe some Synthetic Vitamin D ---- and are told it will prevent Osteoporosis. WHOLE FOOD NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS are different. The truth is, unless you are actually looking for a drug-like effect from the synthetic fraction (for instance, I.V. Ascorbic Acid for cancer), Whole Foods or Whole Food Supplements are the only way to go. I would suggest you glance at the link above to understand this concept better.
NEW PROSTATE CANCER DRUGS HIT THE MARKET
HAVE WE LOST OUR MINDS?
After an expedited six-month review, Abiraterone was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration one year ago (April 2011). But what about side effects? Who knows? I guess if you're dying of aggressive Prostate Cancer, side effects are not exactly at the top of your worry list. Thus, the trial was stopped after only six months because of its astounding success. What did Zytiga do that was so off-the-charts amazing, and just how successful is this "miracle drug" at curing Prostate Cancer? It's not. It adds a little over 100 days to the average lifespan of those dying with terminal Prostate Cancer. To put it in scientific terms, the trial showed that it extended the average survival survival rate of castration-resistant prostate cancer (formerly known as hormone-resistant prostate cancer ---- prostate cancer that does not respond to chemical castration) from 11.2 months 14.8 months.
Despite being licensed by the European Medicines Agency, it is not currently available for routine use in Europe. Why not? Who can afford it? At a cost of over $5,000 / month to extend the inevitable by just over three months, it is simply not cost-effective. But speaking of massively hyped prostate drugs in this same class (non cost-effective --- don't cure anything), enter Provenge. Provenge, a vaccine that was manufactured for the same problem as Zytiga actually does slightly better. On average, it increases lifespan by a whopping 120 days (4 months) --- about ten days longer than Zytiga. And the full course of treatment only costs $93,000 ($31,000 for three "infusions" given over the course of a month). Gulp!
Guess what? Socialist Europe has figured out that it can't afford to pay for these drugs ---- but who do you think still blieves we can? In America, Medicare and Medicaid are legally prohibited from considering cost when deciding whether to pay for a treatment that has been "OK'd" as both safe and effective by the FDA as both of these drugs have. And the real kicker to this story is that there are already two different drugs that do nearly the same thing Zytiga and Provenge (chemical castration ---- block Testosterone) that cost between $100 - $200 a month. Is it all about the money? I am not sure how you argue the opposite? But that's the joy of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE! Especially when it comes to CANCER. If you are looking for solutions to tough problems, at least take a look at THIS POST.
BREAST CANCER SCREENINGS
GOOD or BAD?
Mammograms increase the incidence of diagnosed cancer in the following two ways.
- By detecting tumors earlier than they would have been otherwise found.
- By detecting tumors that would never have been clinically apparent in the woman's life.
Seven years ago, Norwegian women ages 50 to 69, were allowed to have a mammogram every other year using public health data from their government-run health system, Kalager and colleagues and his team looked at the statistics. They determined that Norway's over-diagnosis rate was a whopping one in four (25%). After looking at the data in a different manner, they still estimated the over-diagonisis to be as high as 20%.
When the rate of breast cancer diagnosis is added to the rate of breast cancer over-diagnosis (and the subsequent over-treatment, and mortality / morbidity associated with this process), their stats showed that one breast cancer death per 2,500 women was prevented.
This led experts Drs. Joann Elmore, MD, of the University of Washington, and Suzanne Fletcher, MD, of Harvard Medical School to publish their own research in the very same journal. These two well-respected breast cancer experts wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine that, "Evaluating strategies for observing change in some lesions over time instead of recommending an immediate biopsy has been suggested. Unless serious efforts are made to reduce the frequency of overdiagnosis, the problem will probably increase."
As a side note to this issue, our own State Department's website on Norwegian travel states that, "Healthcare in Norway is very expensive and healthcare providers sometimes require payment at time of service." Norway's tax rate is approaching 50% of their GDP. They are one of the many nations that the AHA (Obamacare) is being modeled after.
WHAT ABOUT SELF BREAST EXAMS?
Let me say that none of these people are telling women not to do self examinations. They are simply telling them that self examinations do not prevent breast cancer like they have been led to believe. Rather than belabor this issue, be sure to read the position paper by the National Breast Cancer Coalition (HERE). Or you could read all my posts on BREAST CANCER.
The recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, being made public recently, will not come as a surprise to cancer specialists. The assumption has always been that finding cancer early is always a good thing. "Not so", said Dr. Virginia Moyer of the Baylor College of Medicine, who heads the task force. "We have put a huge amount of time, effort and energy into PSA screening and that time, effort and energy, that passion, should be going into finding a better test instead of using a test that doesn't work."
The task force analyzed all the previous research on this subject, including five major studies, to evaluate whether routine screening reduces deaths from prostate cancer. The conclusion: There's little if any mortality benefit. "But there is harm from routine screening: impotence, incontinence, infections, even death that can come from the biopsies, surgery and radiation." One study estimated that 40% of the men whose prostate cancer was caught through a PSA test had tumors too slow-growing to ever be a threat.
Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).
Brain Based Therapy
Can You Help
Cardio Or Strength
Cold Laser Therapy
Death By Medicine
Degenerative Joint Disease
D's Of Chronic Pain
Evidence Based Medicine
Gluten Cross Reactivity
Ice Or Heat
Jacks Fork River
Leaky Gut Syndrome
Number One Health Problem
Platelet Rich Therapy
Post Surgical Scarring
Re Invent Yourself
Rib And Chest Pain
Scar Tissue Removal
Sleeping Pills Kill
Stay Or Go
Stretching Post Treatment
Tensegrity And Fascia
The Big Four
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Whole Body Vibration