LifeCare Chiropractic

The Best Chiropractic Care in Mesa, Arizona

Breast Cancer

INCREASED RISK OF BREAST CANCER?

by

Shower curtain giving your son breasts? Know that wonderful “new plastic smell” that comes from things like shower curtains and new cars?  They’re called phthalates and they disrupt our hormones, having an estrogen like effect. In boys, this can lead to breast development.

In this particular study, those boys with pubertal gynecomastia had a incredibly massive 25 TIMES the levels of a derivative in their blood. If this is causing breast development in boys, you can imagine what this is doing to girls. THESE are the things people need to understand. Exposure to these chemicals as a child can greatly increase risk of things like breast cancer.

SOY FOOD INTAKE AND BREAST CANCER SURVIVAL

by

Got soy? I really can’t figure out the heavy opposition to soy foods. Now, we’re not talking about the processed junk soy (soy burgers, soy dogs, TVP…), but rather soy milk, tofu, miso, natto.

The research is very strong in favor, and yet the opposition is what most seem to hear. Yet another study supporting outcomes in breast cancer w/ soy intake. Just sharing this info at the Komen events would save thousands of lives. Coupled w/ cruciferous veggies, chemical avoidance, Vit D, exercise & no refined carbs, good digestion (which means NO acid blocking drugs) & breast cancer would almost drop off the map.

Read entire article here

 

IS A BREAST CANCER CURE POSSIBLE?

by

Clearly our society wants a cure.  Doesn’t matter what it is, we want a cure for it.  Cures are passionate.  Death, sickness, recovery.  These are all things that lift the human spirit and drive us to great accomplishments.  Prevention is boring and takes a much longer commitment and purpose.  This is why “this” and “that” for a cure are the taglines of fundraising efforts.  But is there a cure for breast cancer?

If we “defeat” breast cancer (or any cancer, for that matter), have we really beat it, or have we beat it down to the point where our immune system can again get control of abnormal growth?  My personal belief is that abnormal, cancerous cells are constantly forming in our bodies, but the immune system surveillance is always there to kill off this abnormality.  It is only when the combination of abnormal cells increasing (from environmental exposures, poor diet, stress) and the immune system suffering (again from environmental exposures, poor diet, stress, etc…) that cancer growth expands beyond or ability to control it.

But, as this review suggests, breast cancer is actually a collection of malignancies.  The problem is that there are so many places that growth can go wrong in a cell.  Worse, as the toxicity of society progresses, we are seeing an evolution in the types of cancers that are identified.  Consider it a moving target that we already have a really hard time hitting.  Current cancer treatments, with a few exceptions, are non-specific and target healthy cells as well as the cancer cells.  Worse, it is not uncommon for the nature of breast cancer to change during its course, thus requiring a change in treatment or addition of more chemotherapy.

 So what does all this mean?  It means that a true cure for breast cancer may never be found.  Sure, we may have great advances in treatment of breast cancer such as Herceptin that targets the HER2 protein.  But despite this and despite billions and billions of dollars thrown at a “cure” and early detection, breast cancer survival rates have not increased proportionately.  Lifestyle changes remain the only way that have been shown in study after study after study to lower your risk so that treatment is a moot point.

It’s not exciting.  It’s not glamorous.  No one calls up all their family to tell them excitedly that they DON’T have breast cancer because they’ve made the right decisions.  But in the end, you’ll be glad you did.

YOUR YOUNG DAUGHTERS NEED THIS

by

In a normal situation, a young woman / girl’s body will begin to menstruate when her body understands that it is time. However, in a society that is loaded with hormone mimicking and disrupting chemicals, all too commonly menarche starts too early.  This is a very scary thing.

The early a female starts her cycles, the greater her risk for breast cancer in the future. Worse, when early menarche is forced because of estrogen-like chemicals in the environment, this is a solid recipe for breast cancer. Obesity also plays a strong role in the early onset of menarche.

Thus, being aware of and doing the best to avoid the environmental toxins (flame retardants, BPA in plastic water bottles and can liners, PCBs in electrical components and plastics, pesticides, fertilizers, etc…) is of the utmost importance. This means that we need to look around our homes and look for old cushions (dog beds!!), flame retardant mattresses, bug sprays, carpet fresheners and any other EPA registered chemicals and get them out. Period.

It means making sure our children are maintaining an ideal body weight, or at least stop procrastinating the changes to get your family there. Tomorrow is too late.

This particular study looks at early menarche from yet another angle. In this study done in Cambodia, those girls who were deficient in vitamin D had twice the chance of starting menarche early. And keep in mind that, in many studies on vitamin D, we look at deficiency, NOT optimal levels.  So what would happen if we looked at those with optimal levels instead of sufficient?

So, as a very simple tool, we should be giving our children vitamin D supplementation. But this is not in lieu of the other changes mentioned. These are our children. Their health is in your hands. Don’t screw it up.

THERE’S A DOWNSIDE TO MAMMOGRAPHY?

by

Despite the update to the United States Preventative Task Force recommendations for women to not get screening mammography until  age 50, organizations such as the American Cancer Society have thumbed their noses at the recommendation changes and are still promoting mammography at 40.

We continue to look at this from an emotional standpoint and have not been willing to step back and look at the actual data.  The problem is Norway.  This darn country was late implementing routine use of mammography.  What this has done is created a perfect before and after picture.  And it’s not as rosy as we’ve been led to believe.

 We already know that a big problem is that a large chunk (maybe 1/3) of the “issues” found on mammography would spontaneously go away.  Yes–believe it or not the body can and will rise up and get rid of cancers in the early stages.

In addition, many masses are actually found on breast self-exam which are then later confirmed by mammography, but the mammography did not actually “find” the mass.

Ok..so we know that there is a lot of psychological downsides to a false positive mammography that is later found to not be a tumor.

But this study sheds more light on this issue.  In Norway, when mammography was introduced, breast surgery rates went up a massive 70%!  This is great for the surgeons, but not so much for the poor patients.  Keep in mind that this is NOT accompanied for a comparable lowered risk of breast cancer deaths.  So, more surgeries but not necessarily better outcomes.

The bottom line is that this will remain a controversial and highly emotional topic.  I’m only trying to educate that mammography has serious drawbacks as a means of cancer PREVENTION. 

It is not, and will never be, a preventative measure for breast cancer.  Healthy lifestyle changes are the only means of prevention.  Mammography is merely finding problems early, but does, in no way, shape or form, prevent them.  Until society stops teaching that mammography = prevention, we’re going to have problems.

WATCH FOR THIS INFO AT 3-DAY WALK

by

I’m pretty sure you’re sick of hearing my frustration about how little attention on prevention of chronic disease is spent by our national organizations.  Oftentimes, you have to dig through much of the website to get to very “soft” recommendations that suggest that lifestyle “may” lower your risk.

One of the largest fund raising organizations, according to their website, allocates a paltry 7% of the millions upon millions of dollars to prevention.  Their formula to help a reader determine their risk looks at 7 factors:

  • Age
  • Age at first period
  • Age at first birth
  • Family history of breast cancer (mother, sister or daughter)
  • Number of past breast biopsies
  • Number of breast biopsies that showed atypical cells  
  • Race/ethnicity

We will never, NEVER lower rates of breast cancer if the national organizations allocate prevention to a sideshow.  Notice that ALL of these risk factors are in the past and you cannot control them.  Sickeningly consistent with the external locus of control (it’s not your fault–there’s nothing you can do, so make sure you get your screenings early) so typical in society today.  To not even list known risk factors like sedentary lifestyles, low intake of fruits and veggies (specifically cruciferous vegetables), no intake of processed foods, increased intake of unprocessed, non-GMO soy products and increased intake of whole grains, which segues into this article.

This particular article, as is consistent with hundreds of other studies looking at lifestyle and the risk of breast cancer, finds pretty strong reductions in the risk of breast cancer with higher intakes of fiber.

For each 10g / day of dietary fiber, the risk was lowered by 7%.  A good quality diet may contain 30-40 g/ day, so you do the math.

So how do we get more fiber?  Keep in mind that there are two types–insoluble (roughage, as we used to call it, that passes through the GI tract intact) and soluble (fibers that our body cannot digest, but the bacteria in our gut can).  Both have their benefits, so increasing your intake of both is good.

Good sources of insoluble fiber include whole grains (steer clear of cereals and breads with added bran–it’s cheating) and vegetables.  Soluble fiber sources include artichokes, beans, fruits, whole grains.  The list is actually much longer, but you get the idea.

So, the bottom line is that, despite the national organizations dropping the ball on prevention, the data is very strong that the choices we make increase or decrease our risk of breast cancer.  Begin to increase your intake of dietary fiber any chance you get.  Not only will your GI tract thank you, but so will the rest of your body.

Read more…

BUT BREAST CANCER IS GENETIC…

by

Society greatly wants to believe that all of our chronic diseases are genetic in origin.  You’re chance of getting or not getting a chronic disease like heart disease, diabetes or cancer is genetic and their is nothing you can do to alter it.  So why try?

Certainly genetics play a role in anyone’s overall predisposition.  But the way we treat the genes that we have trumps all and is the major determining factor.  All the discussion and research on genetic causes of chronic disease drives the fundraising for our major “advocacy” groups.

After all, if it’s your lifestyle giving you breast cancer and NOT your genetics, then what reason do these organizations have to exist?  Their entire advocacy could consist of a two page flyer on what to do to lower your risk and you either do it, or don’t.  Wouldn’t exactly cost billions of dollars, would it??

So we kind of nod and wink and say that, while the research isn’t solid, there is some suggestion that lifestyle plays a role in diabetes, heart disease, cancer and (fill in the blank.)  The focus is shifted from internal responsibility to an external locus of control (of which genetics is an external factor–it’s one you can’t control).

So what does all this have to do with this study?  Simple.  Carrying excess body fat around the middle unquestionably, without a doubt, unequivocally, positively increases your risk of most cancers.  Whether you have a genetic tendency or not.

In this study, authors looked at the methylation of 3 different promoter genes.  If a promoter gene undergoes a process called methylation, it essentially “turns on” that gene.  If that gene promotes cancerous growth in that cell, it’s NOT a good thing.

In those with higher waist to hip ratios, there was an 85% greater risk of having more 2 or 3 (of 3) of these particular promoter genes methylated.

Bottom line, whether you chose to make the changes to achieve and / or maintain an ideal weight, you have to accept the fact that an elevated waist to hip ratio WILL increase your risk of developing many types of cancer, with breast cancer being focused on in this study.

Read more…

ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF MAMMOGRAPHY?

by

Talk about an emotionally charged topic.  I’ve certainly addressed this in recent posts, but I’m going to add further evidence supporting the idea that mammography has little effect on breast cancer outcomes. 

This particular study found no evidence to suggest that mammography lowers breast cancer mortality.  Read that again.  Considering that, in this country mammography = “cancer prevention” we are really screwed.

 How is this even possible?  We are drilled again and again and again in this country that screening saves lives.  PSA.  Mammography.  Colonoscopy.  We rely so heavily on it that these procedures fall under the classification of “prevention.”  Let’s get this straight–these procedures are in NO way, shape or form “prevention.”  They are all early detection and do nothing to prevent the conversion of normal cells to cancerous cells.

So..back to mammography.  A few things to consider so you can put everything in perspective.  Many breast masses are originally identified via breast self exams.  This remains the simplest way to detect many masses.

Next, based on research out of Denmark, about 22% of cancers found on mammography would’ve gone away on their own.  This is all kinds of scary when you think about the 22% of women who had aggressive, life-changing radiation and chemo for a mass that would have resolved on its own.  This also skews the “benefits” of mammography when 22% of the cases are going to get better no matter what you do.

Then throw in the stress and anxiety and decreased quality of life that goes along with a false positive mammography.

Of course, this is all in the context of the fact that mammography utilizes ionizing radiation and by itself will increase the risk of breast cancer.  Compare this to thermography, which uses no radiation and can instantly differentiate cysts from tumors.  Unfortunately, the money never went into thermography research to support its use.

Overall, the problem in Westernized medicine is that we use screening tools as prevention.  Instead of educating the public about the well known ways to prevent breast cancer, we promote screenings.  I’m going to get shot leaving the office on this one, but if we shifted all the money being used for initial screening mammography (as opposed to mammography following a lump detected on BSE) into an aggressive campaign to educate on refined carbs, exercise, soy intake, BPA from plastics and cruciferous vegetable intake, we would see far greater drops in cancer deaths (and incidence) than we currently see with mammography in the forefront.

Read more…