LifeCare Chiropractic

The Best Chiropractic Care in Mesa, Arizona

Breast Cancer

MEN–IS YOUR WATER BOTTLE GIVING YOU BREASTS?

by

So this is not the first time I’ve brought up the toxins in our environment.  However, the label of your bottled water certainly does not indicate that every case comes with a training bra, but maybe it should.

Many chemicals in the environment have an estrogen-like effect.  Most notable of these is plastics and compounds used in plastics such as bisphenol A (BPA).  The estrogenic effects have consequences for both men and women.

The most obvious for women is the increased risk of estrogen related cancers like breast and endometrial cancers.  However, early onset of menses and menstrual problems like endometriosis and PMS are influenced as well.

On the male side of the equation is an increased risk of prostate cancer and enlargement of the prostate.  Loss of libido and lowered sperm counts can contribute to infertility problems in couples.

This particular article puts a scary face on my strong recommendation to ditch the plastic water bottles in favor of water from an RO system into a BPA free water bottle.  The authors find that even many products labelled “BPA free” released high levels of BPA when exposed to UV radiation, high heat or microwaving.

The bottom line is that we need to avoid many of these plastics as much as possible.  Based on this article, maybe stainless steel or glass water bottles are less questionable.  It means letting new plastics like shower curtains fully air out before you leave them in an enclosed room.  It means leaving the windows down in your car to air out the phthalates coming off the dashboard.

Read More….

MORE RATIONING OF BREAST CANCER TREATMENT

by

You may have heard the news hoopla recently when the FDA withdrew the approval of Avastin for the treatment of breast cancer.  The world was floored.  The news screamed rationing.  The comments following all the news stories spoke of lives saved and how dare we put a cost on human lives.

As often happens, emotions trump science and common sense.  Here’s how the story went…

Avastin was initially approved not on survival, but on progression free survival.  This means that the drug was initially improved based on the data NOT that it saved lives, but that it lengthened the time before the breast cancer progressed.  This is the infamous “surrogate end marker” I’ve described often enough.  It does not check the actual outcome we want, but instead checks for some reflection of the actual outcome that someone decided might be a good idea to check for.  Unfortunately, using surrogate end markers, in the vast majority of cases (if not all), allows drugs that would not otherwise have been approved to make it past the FDA and make drug companies billions upon billions of dollars.  It is not until years later (and more billions) that we look at the actual end point and shrug our shoulders meakly, saying that maybe it didn’t work as well as we thought it was going to.

Back to Avastin.  It was approved based on the progression free survival.  Only later did the real picture emerge.  Actual average survival was not increased.  The cost for this “miracle” drug?  A whopping $92K.

The critics were quick to look at this as a money thing.  “Why can’t we spend $92K on a breast cancer patient–does this mean that we can place a value on a life of $92K??”  This argument, unfortunately, only works if it actually lengthened survival.  Further we need to look at the increased risk of side effects and lower quality of life scores.  Again at a cost of $92K.

Looking at the second round of data several years after Avastin was approved, the FDA voted unanimously to withdraw approval of Avastin.  The drug’s manufacturer, Genetech was not happy and have contested the ruling.  On what grounds, I’m not exactly sure.

Compare this to higher levels of isoflavanoids from soy in the bloodstream of breast cancer patients, where in one study the patients with the higher levels had DOUBLE the chance of survival.  All for less than $92,000….

http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=14796&query=OF

SHOULD A WOMAN IN HER 40’S GET A MAMMOGRAM?

by

There was quite a bit of controversy when the US Preventative Services Task Force released new recommendations in 2009 for mammography.  These recommendations did not include mammography for women under 50.  Man did the fecal matter hit the fan.  This was a taste of Obamacare to come.  This was rationing of health care.  The national organizations like the American Cancer Society and radiology societies across the country were in an uproar.  The news channels had a heyday.

No one seemed to want to take a step back and evaluate how much of this reaction was emotional and how much rational.  A few things to consider rationally.

There is no doubt that there is a high degree of false positives with mammography.  The psychological damage (which leads to a lowered perceived quality of life), additional cost and additional harms associated with radiation exposure and biopsy procedures (such as fine needle aspirations) are not to be ignored.  Remember that mammography itself is a risk factor for cancer because of the radiation exposure.

Far worse is the finding in several research studies that 22% of cancers found on mammography would be taken care of by our own immune system.  Imagine the numbers of women exposed to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation for a cancer that would never have grown.  THIS is the true problem with mammography being recommended too early.

Somehow the facts like this get glazed over in the emotional debate and the benefits of mammography get blown up larger than life, making the recommendation to wait to get mammography an emotionally scary process for women. 

This particular study asked women aged 39-49 to evaluate their own personal risk for getting breast cancer and their desire to get a mammogram before aged 50.  Common sense and data be damned–88% of the women overestimated their risk of breast cancer and 89% want to be screened before age 50.

In addition, just under half of breast cancers (around 41-43%) are NOT detected initially via mammography, but rather through accident or deliberate self examination.

And nowhere are we using this opportunity to discuss prevention.  Many women mistakenly believe that breast cancer is genetic and their is little they can do to avoid it other than “prevention” via early mammography.  As a society we have done an astronomically poor job of educating the public on prevention.  Heck–the general public does not even realize you CAN prevent it, let alone HOW despite millions upon millions of dollars raised in the name of awareness.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937811004510

April 18, 2000 Research Update

by

 

Yet more evidence in support of the Atkin’s diet…

U.S. studies link charbroiled meat, breast cancer

Dr. Rashmi Sinha, a researcher with the Iowa Women’s Health Study, told reporters at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer research,that her research showed a twofold risk of breast cancer in women who consumed the most-well-done meat compared with those who ate less-cooked meat. There was no link found with total meat consumption or red meat consumption. Cooking meat at high temperatures, by frying, broiling and barbecuing, produces heterocyclic amines, a product of the reaction between creatine, a chemical in muscles, with amino acids, a core component of protein, as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the compounds found on charred food, both of which have been proved to promote cancer in animals. The longer the meat is cooked and the higher the temperature the more of these compounds, which scientists say are also likely to be carcinogens for humans, are produced.

Why do we still insist that the RDA for vitamin C is 60 mg, when most good studies showing benefits w/ vitamin C is in much higher doses??

vitamin C After Fracture May Stave Off RSD

A research psper publised in The Journal of Family Practice 2000;49:268-269,sh ows new evidence suggesting that vitamin C may stave off a form of nerve pain known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). RSD can develop following an injury, such as a traumatic event, and is characterized by pain, swelling and limited movement that is out of proportion to the injury and lingers long after the injury has healed. In the study people who took vitamin C after breaking a wrist were less likely to develop RSD than those who took a placebo. The study, conducted by Dr. P.E. Zollinger and colleagues, examined 115 wrist fracture patients aged 24 to 88 who took either 500 milligrams of vitamin C daily for 50 days following the injury, or a placebo. One year later, RSD occurred in only 7% of patients in the vitamin C group, compared with 22% of those on placebo. The finding suggests that taking 500 milligrams of vitamin C per day for 50 days after a wrist fracture (or other area of injury) may help prevent RSD.

Supplements are not always the best way to go. Getting what you need from nature and foods is ALWAYS the best route…

Soy’s Anti-Tumor Effect

At an American Association of Cancer research meeting, Dr. Andreas Constantinou, associate professor in surgical oncology at UIC’s College of Medicine, said all the compounds he studied reduced the incidence of tumors, the soy protein mix without isoflavones was the most effective in decreasing the number of tumors, he said. Constantinou suggested that the anti-tumor ingredient in the soy mixture works by increasing the production of two detoxification enzymes that shield cells from harmful substances called free radicals. Other components of soy that could be responsible are dietary fiber, phytic acid or lignans, the researcher said. “Based on these findings, I recommend against using purified soy isoflavones,” Constantinou said.

The current theory on ulcers is that H. pylori is bad, bad, bad and must be destroyed. Maybe it’s supposed to be there in some patients…?? H. pylori may protect against acid reflux disease..

Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with milder gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 14 427-432 Factors that predicted severe oesophagitis included age over 60 years (P < 0.001) and hiatus hernia (P < 0.001). H. pylori infection was the only factor that showed a negative correlation with severe oesophagitis. H. pylori infection is associated with milder GERD.

There are many supplements out there that can help w/ various conditions, but be wary of miracle cures from ANY nutritional supplement, whether on the internet or elsewhere…

FTC Reaches Settlements With Internet Health Marketers Over Bogus Claims

The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday settled fraud charges with three different health companies for using the Internet to allegedly tout products like cetylmyristoleate (CMO) and Essiac Tea as effective treatments or cures for diseases such as arthritis, cancer, diabetes and AIDS.

Gee, here’s a treatment for high cholesterol that may have many dangerous side effects…

Non technical Summary: Eating Walnuts Lowers Cholesterol Levels in People with High Cholesterol

Cooking or steaming may actually increase the availability of nutrients from some foods…

Cooking Increases the Iron Value of Many Vegetables

Boiling, steaming or stir-frying will increase the iron available to the body from many vegetables, according to research findings presented here at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society. Cooking increases the bioavailable iron in cabbage from about 5% to 15%, and in broccoli flowerets from 6% to more than 30%, Dr. Lee and colleagues have found. Cooking even enhanced the iron bioavailability of some vegetables that have a high available iron content when raw, such as red and green peppers and tomatoes. Dr. Lee and associates tested 48 vegetables in all, purchased fresh from retail groceries in Taiwan, and found that 37 of the 48 are most nutritious if cooked for approximately 15 minutes. Some vegetables, such as spinach, were equally nutritious whether raw or cooked. The research team determined that storing cooked vegetables overnight, even under refrigeration, results in dramatic losses in the available iron content.

 

CAN WE REALLY WIPE OUT BREAST CANCER?

by

Maybe not wipe out, but how about an lower risk with just some general changes?  I typically volunteer in the medical tent at the Komen 3-day events and strike up conversations with the walkers.  It seems like there are more and more 20-something walkers that are there in honor of their mothers who have experienced breast cancer.  When asked what they are doing to protect themselves, most are not aware that you can do anything beyond annual mammograms.  Uhhhhh???  Maybe I live in my own little bubble, but are we that disconnected in society that we don’t think we can prevent cancer?

In this particular study, researchers looked at a “healthy lifestyle index.”  This consisted of moderate and/or vigorous-intensity physical activity, low consumption of fat, processed foods, refined cereals, complex sugars, and the avoidance of tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption.  Not a very difficult lifestyle to adhere to.

The benefits?  Premenopause women with the highest adherance to the index had a 50% lower risk of breast cancer.  Postmenopausal???  A massive, cancer destroying 80%.  Forget “stamping out cancer.”  This smashes it before there is anything to treat.

Of course, this does not even include things like specifically increasing the intake of cruciferous veggies, avoidance of toxic chemicals like BPA and pesticides, fixing constipation and taking a good quality multivitamin.  What happens when we include these?

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/20/5/912.abstract

DOES SOY REALLY INCREASE RISK FOR BREAST CANCER?

by

I’m unsure how soy has managed to get such a bad reputation.  But there is no doubt that the internet has contributed to the idea that soy is bad for our health and increases the risk of cancer, thyroid problems, breasts on men and maybe even hangnails.  It is a topic that I frequently have to address both in the community and in my office.

First, let me make a few things clear.  We are talking about unprocessed soy, so NOT veggie burgers, TFP (textured vegetable protein) or soy hot dogs (do people seriously buy these?).  Given the concern over the genetic modification of foods (GMO), organic or at least non-GMO soy is the only way to go.  So soy milk, tofu, edemame, tempeh.

I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of research studies on soy are very positive, especially as it relates to breast cancer.  Lowering the risk and improving outcomes have been shown consistently in the medical literature.  This particular study found a whopping 54% lower risk of dying after a breast cancer diagnosis.  Wow!  Too bad they don’t post this type of info all over the Komen 3-day sites.

The compounds believed to provide the most benefits in soy are the isoflavones.  We also know that isoflavones are converted by specific bacteria in the gut to the aglycone form, which is the most protective form.  This is likely why some populations get greater benefits from soy (like Asian women raised in Asia) because they have consumed soy over a lifetime and the bacteria in their gut have adapted.  It is also likely that antibiotics will destroy these beneficial bacteria–yet another downside to society’s heavy dependence on antibiotics for every little sniffle.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/20/5/854.abstract