Lifecare Chiropractic
1830 S. Alma School Rd
Bldg 7, Ste 135
Mesa, AZ 85210
(480) 839-2273

Click here for directions
Sign up for Dr. Bogash
Sign up for Dr. Bogash's Rantings and instantly receive a Free copy of his ebook "Fight The Obesity Crisis"
Email:

Facebook Icon, Links to Dr. Bogash's Facebook Page  
Email Us Icon, Links to Email


Cancer tips

IS CURCUMIN PROTECTIVE – A SPICE FOUND IN CURRIES? – (02-21-05)

Consumption of Chemopreventive Agent Curcumin by Cancer Patients

The idea that curcumin (a spice found in curry and mustard) was protective is not a big surprise.  What I found definately surprising was that, while the curcumin given to the colorectal cancer patients was found in the tumor and found to lower the amount of damage being done to the DNA, it was not seen in the bloodstream.

So, the question here is, was all the curcumin out of the bloodstream before one hour had elapsed, or did the curcumin not even get absorped effectively?  I don’t have the answer, but given how frequently curcimin is put into “anti inflammatory” formulas for conditions such as joint pain it makes me wonder if the curcumin is even making it to the target tissues.

Read entire article here

 

Share

ASPIRIN INCREASES RISK OF PANCREATIC CANCER – (04-04-05)

Dietary Intake of Lycopene is associated with reduced Pancreatic Cancer Risk

While this should not come as a surprise, anything I can put out on pancreatic cancer prevention is important.  This is still such a devastating cancer without a long list of  identified modifiable risk factors like other cancers.  Aspirin is also known to increase risk of pancreatic cancer.

Read entire article here

Share

MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING SCARES

Cancer screening is arguably one of the more hotly debated procedures in medicine today.  However, we we get emotional about cancer screening is when we lose touch with the benefit vs harm balance.  Recent changes in mammography recommendations have clearly crossed this line.

It all seemed to start with the USPSTF guidelines in 2009 to not screen women in their 40s for breast cancer using mammography.  There was an uproar, an a virtual thumbing up of noses to the recommendations by the American Cancer Society and various radiological societies.  This seemed to feed on the uneducated populace that the USPSTF recommendations were purely driven by an attempt to ration care and save money.

But when emotions come into play, it seems to favor the benefits of screening.  Early detection is key to breast cancer treatment and has been drilled into our heads to the point that few women would even consider waiting until they are 50 for their first mammogram.

But to make a fully informed decision, we need to understand all the facts.  Does early detection of mammography save lives?  Yes.  Is this balanced out by the harms that is causes?  The evidence does not suggest so.  Why is screening by mammography to prevent breast cancer deaths a clear cut thing?  There are a variety of reasons:

  1. A large percentage (57%) of breast lumps are identified by self exam.  The patient then goes to their doctor and a mammogram is ordered.  Later, the mammogram is credited with finding the breast cancer.  Obviously not the case.  This tends to overinflate the benefits of mammography.
  2. The rate of false negatives is also high, leading to lowered quality of life and extreme stress levels.
  3. Up to 22% of the cancers found on mammography may resolve on their own.  In other words, we are treating something that will go away on its own.  Again, if the mass is going to go away on its own, treatment had nothing to do with the outcome and yet the mammography is again credited with a life saved.
  4. When mammography is done, the risk of invasive surgery such as a mastectomy goes up.  In Norway, this number went up a whopping 70%, but there was no improvement in breast cancer outcomes.

Women will generally pipe up and state that they want mammography to find that cancer early.  Everyone seems to think that they’ll be in the group aided by mammography.  But, statistically this is not true.  Your risk of being harmed by a mammography, most notably in those younger than 50, is much greater than the risk of your life being saved.

This particular study looked at the details from Norway in more detail and found that mammography led to overdiagnosis in 15-25% of women in whom cancer was found on testing.  These are women who would have had procedures done that did not need to be done.  The costs and harms associated with this are staggerring.

The bottom line is that, as I’ve always said, we cannot rely on early detection to “prevent” breast cancer (or any other cancer, for that matter).  We must live a lifestyle that is anti-cancer and truly prevent breast cancer.  In this scenario, early detection becomes superfluous.

Share

CANCER RESEARCH WILL THEY EVER FIND A CURE?

The “war on cancer” has been around since the National Cancer Act was passed in 1971.  40+ years.  It has been estimated that over $200 billion has been spent on research to “find a cure.”  But will we ever find a cure for cancer?

The rates of most cancers have increased at possibly leveled off.  Few cancers have truly declined in the past 40 years.  If they have, the drops have been insignificant.  Overall, this really makes it look like we will never find a cure for the vast majority of cancers.  Sure, we have very toxic “cures” that have good success rates for certain cancers.  This particular news story from a former research scientist at Amgen really puts our wasted money into perspective.

Dr. Begley, in a commentary published in the journal Nature, made multiple points in regards to cancer research:

  1. His team looked at 53 “landmark” publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs and found that 47 of the 53 could not be replicated.
  2. The war on cancer’s failure may a new culprit: too many basic scientific discoveries, done in animals or cells growing in lab dishes, are wrong.
  3. At Bayer, of 47 cancer projects at Bayer during 2011, less than one-quarter could reproduce previously reported findings, despite the efforts of three or four scientists working full time for up to a year.
  4. The National Academy of Sciences has heard testimony that the number of scientific papers that had to be retracted increased more than tenfold over the last decade; the number of journal articles published rose only 44 percent.

So basically, we are spending uncountable billions of dollars on basic cancer research to determine a path to a new drug, and the bulk of this research may be worthless.  While this may sound a little hard to believe, how many true “wonder cancer drugs” have been produced in the past 40 years?  Certainly Gleevec for leukemia and Herceptin for breast cancer are on the list, but very few others come to mind.

As I also say, what if these billions of dollars went to educating on cancer prevention?  On funding to help low income families grow or by healthier food options?  This kind of money geared towards prevention could, without a doubt, pay much higher dividends that what we’ve seen over the past 40 years of cancer research.

Share

BEWARE!! CANCER AND NIGHT SHIFT WORK LINKED?

Our normal sleep wake cycle that is timed to daylight hours is actually an essential component of good health.  Besides the fact that the stress that may disrupt sleep cycles is deadly to us, night shift work may have a direct effect on cancers rates via a hormone called melatonin.

Melatonin is a hormone produced deep in the brain (the pineal gland) and helps to regulate our sleep / wake cycle among other things.  Sunlight hitting the back of the retina shuts down the production of melatonin.  Thus,e the onset of nighttime will allow the body to release more melatonin as less sunlight is no longer hitting the retina.

The research linking melatonin levels, night shift work and cancer has been mounting for several years now and includes:

  1. Night shift work increases the risk for breast cancer.
  2.  A mere 1 hour of light exposure in the middle of the night affects cell division.
  3. Higher blood levels of melatonin led to lower risk of breast cancer.

This particular study adds further evidence to the equation, looking at the levels of 6-sulfatoxymelatonin levels (a derivative of melatonin):

  1. 6-Sulfatoxymelatonin levels were 62% lower in night shift women when they slept in daytime.
  2. FSH and LH were 62% and 58% higher, respectively, in night shift working women sleeping in daytime.
  3. When night shift workers did sleep at night, they had 42% lower 6-sulfatoxymelatonin levels.
  4. At night, while working, 6-Sulfatoxymelatonin levels were 69% lower than daytime workers sleeping at that time.
  5. FSH and LH were 35% and 38% higher, compared with day shift workers in nighttime sleep.

Overall, it is clear that not sleeping at night will lower the levels of the protective hormone melatonin, while at the same time increasing levels of reproductive hormones that may increase the risk for cancers such as breast.  Add this risk on top of women who do not sleep well at night due to stress related sleep problems and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

Share

HOW MUCH VITAMIN D IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADEQUATE? – (05-23-05)

Vitamin D and calcium deficits predispose for multiple chronic diseases

I continue to rant on about how much research there is supporting Vit D and how much we’ve become deathly afraid of the sun.  Estimates range that as high as a whopping 75% of the population are Vit D deficient.  Given that it has been shown to protect against colon, prostate and breast cancer, atherosclerosis, certain forms of depression (specifically seasonal affective disorder), increase insulin sensitivity, strengthen bones, and probably many other things I can recall now, this is a major concern.  Even more of a concern is how much Vit D we consider “adequate.”  Normal sunlight exposure produces about 10,000 IU per day.

There is a wonderful review (Read More full text also available) that debunks the “upper safety threshold” of 2,000 IU–suggesting that daily intakes up around 4,000 IU are probably what should be recommended.  Contrast that with the current recommendations of a paltry 400 IU–almost 10 times below!!

Read entire article here

Share

CONSUME FRUITS AND VEGETABLES TO REDUCE RISK OF COLORECTAL CANCER – (12-03-07)

Dietary Flavonoids and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer

I’ve said many times before that one of the reasons I do not support our national organizations is that they spent very minimal time on prevention and consistently preach about finding a cure. The bottom line is that we have so many opportunities to prevent many types of cancer that they should essentially not be present in our society, let alone a major killer. But the appropriate details never seem to get out to the general public. The most specific we ever get is “eat your fruits and vegetables.” Hardly specific. Knowing which fruits and veggies pack the strongest punch can help.

This article reviews the effect of a variety of flavonoids on colon cancer and found that the risk reduction could be as high as 32% for quercitin (high in onions) and catechins (high in teas). This is with one single intervention. Add in vitamin D, exercise, high fiber coupled w/ healthy bacterial flora, etc, and you’ve pretty much eliminated all but the most tough cases.

Read entire article here

Share

EARLY SUN EXPOSURE REDUCES BREAST CANCER RISK – (11-05-07)

Vitamin D and Reduced Risk of Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Case-Control Study

I just spent this past weekend volunteering at the Breast Cancer 3-day in the medical tent providing injury care to the walkers. Invariably, in conversation with patients, the question of why they were walking came up. I will always remember the response of an 18 yr old girl who’s mom died of breast cancer 5 yrs ago. I asked her what SHE was doing to prevent breast cancer for herself. She replied with some degree of frustration that “they” won’t do anything because she was too young. Of course she was referring to mammography. But how twisted has our society become that we, at it’s most important moment, confuse prevention with early detection?

This study is a perfect example of how much can be done to intervene in the process. But given our aversion to preventing cancer, and that this study found that early exposure (10-19 years of age) to the sun cut risk by 35%, how many generations will it be before we pass knowledge of prevention from the adults that “get it” to the youth that “need it??”

Read entire article here

Share

FACTORS INVLOVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERVICAL CANCER – (11-05-07)

Lower Blood Cell Folate Enhances the HPV-16 associated Risk of Intraepithelial Neoplasm

There has been endless press over the past year since the release of the HPV vaccine, which, incidentally is never called that–it is called the “cervical cancer vaccine.” How’s that for a twist from the marketing guys? What seems to have gotten lost in the mix is that it is not exposure to these specific strains of HPV alone that leads to development of cervical cancer. There are many other factors involved, and folic acid status has long been known to be a major player, believed to play a role through aiding healthy cell division.

This study adds further weight to that thought process. Today’s processed diet low in fresh fruits and vegetables and phytonutrients will lead to lower folate status and contribute to cervical cancer risk. Indeed, there have been clinical studies where high dose folic acid alone has reversed abnormal pap results. What is most remarkable, though, is just HOW MUCH of a risk the combination of HPV-16 and low folic acid was. A massive 9 X the risk!!

Read entire article here

Share

REDUCE CANCER RATES BY SUPPLEMENTING VITAMIN D – (10-29-07)

Optimal Vitamin D Status for Colorectal Cancer Prevention – A Quantitative Meta Analysis

1,000 to 2,000 IU/day of Vit D could result in a 50% reduction in cancer rates. 50%. One half. With no known side effects to Vit D supplementation at this level, and little risk with rationale sun exposure. Shouldn’t this information be plastered across every piece of marketing material the American Cancer Society puts out? If the benefit is so clear cut, why do I still get push back from people in the community when I suggest 2,000 IU/day? Shouldn’t everyone be aware of this by now?

I can’t begin to explain my frustration with all the focus on “finding a cure” when knowledge about prevention is so incredibly strong. And this is just one approach, which, incidentally, would also be in line with the AHA’s and ADA’s agendas, since they purport to lower the burden of their respective diseases.

Read entire article here

Share