LifeCare Chiropractic

The Best Chiropractic Care in Mesa, Arizona

Breast Cancer

The Bottled Water Story Just Got Scarier

by

Ok. By now, unless you’re living in a cave, you know that BPA from plastic water bottles is not good for us.  So industry has been moving towards BPA free bottles.

But what if the story was so much more complex?  It always is.

First, as way of background, Bisphenol A (BPA) is not good for us and is linked to certain cancers, obesity, infertility and diabetes.  This is a good enough reason to avoid drinking out of plastic water bottles.

Next, the quality of the water in bottled water is usually an issue, as seen in Environmental Working Groups’ bottled water study.  Much of it is merely bottled tap water and concerns of chlorine breakdown products is high.

Finally, where on Earth did the idea that we need to lug around 12.5 ounces of water in the first place come from?  I have certainly addressed our society’s blind devotion to the not-backed-by-research intake of bottled water.  We just don’t need it.  Period.

And yet, despite all of this, bottled water is everywhere.  You can’t go 20 feet in a public place without seeing someone lugging one around, taking off the cap, and taking a short swig.  Most often then bottle is half full.  I just don’t get it.

Just in case all that I’ve written in the past is STILL not enough to convince you to abandon bottled water, I present this particular study.  In it, researchers looked hard to additional compounds that would block the action of either estrogen receptors or testosterone receptors.  Here’s the details:

  1. 18 bottled water products were evaluated, and 24,520 compounds were found (YES- that is 24 THOUSAND).  These compounds were further evaluated for their effects on the estrogen and androgen receptors.
  2. In 13 of the 18 products, chemicals were found that blocked estrogen.
  3. In 16 samples there were antiandrogenic substance (blocking the action of testosterone), in some cases strong enough to block 90% of the action of androgens in just 3.75 ml.
  4. In regards to estrogen, one compound rose to the top: (2-ethylhexyl) fumarate (DEHF).
  5. Despite the knowledge that the bottled waters blocked androgen action, the researchers were unable to lock in which compound was the most to blame,

Overall, this means that entire picture of the bottled water product, whether it is something in the water or from the packaging, is toxic to humans.  Period.  Stop buying and using them NOW.  Instead switch to a reverse-osmosis system (these days, you can purchase a 5 stage unit for around $100)  or a stand alone unit such as a Brita water filter.  If you use the larger, 5 gallon jugs in a dispenser, make sure you’re at least using the BPA free ones.

You’re not going to eliminate your exposure to plastics, but at least we can make a conscious effort to reduce the exposure.  Bottled water is out.  Period.

Cholesterol Lowering Drugs and Breast Cancer: Might as Well Smoke Instead

by

I am no fan of cholesterol lowering drugs, especially the statins. I thought I was aware of all of the dangerous side effects, but this one caught me by surprise.

My office staff recalls a fundraising event a number of years back for a local cancer organization.  The keynote speaker to a group of maybe 250 attendees was a respected general surgeon here in Chandler.  At the beginning he talked about prevention of breast cancer and my heart rate jumped up slightly in anticipation of hearing him deliver something profound about preventing breast cancer to this captive audience.

Over the next ten minutes or so I went over the long list of things we know to be protective against breast cancer.  Exercise.  Plant based diet.  Non-GMO soy.  Vitamin D.  Less stress.  Cruciferous veggies.  I was trying to guess which one he would throw out to the receptive audience.

Statins.

He mentioned that statins may turn out to lower the risk of breast cancer.  I felt a hand on my shoulder holding me back from running to grab the mike.  Hundreds of things he could have mentioned and he throws out STATINS????  Needless to say we have never gone back to this fundraising event.

Now, years later, we see how completely off base this doctor was.  This particular study looked at whether or not the long term (10+ years) use of statins actually INCREASED the risk of breast cancer.  Here’s what they found:

  1. Current users of statins for 10+ years had an 83% risk of invasive ductal carcinoma (the scary kind).
  2. There was a 97% increased risk of invasive lobular carcinoma.
  3. If there was a diagnosis of elevated cholesterol (and wouldn’t this be almost the entire group??) had a more than double the risk of both invasive ductal carcinoma.
  4. High cholesterol diagnosis and cholesterol lowering drug use ups risk of invasive lobular carcinoma a massive 243%.

Given that this class of drugs flat out sucks at primary prevention of heart attacks, there is not a whole lot more to say on the topic, is there?

Still Think Breast Cancer is Genetic? 3 Tips to Slash Risk

by

If you follow organizations like the American Cancer Society and the Koman Foundation, you would think that developing breast cancer is left completely to chance.

However, this flies completely and absolutely in the face of a large body of evidence that supports that lifestyle plays a huge role in the development of cancer.  I have reviewed many of these in the past.  Some studies look at general recommendations and some look at very specific recommendations.

The links to breast cancer can be protective, like exercise or a plant-based diet, or they can increase the risk of developing cancer, such as smoking or BPA in plastic water bottles.  The risks or protection can also be unmodifiable or modifiable, such as sun exposure (most likely due to vitamin D) or soy exposure as a teen or the fact that you used to smoke.  You can’t go back and modify this risk, although you can accept that choices you have made in the past have contributed to your risk.  This knowledge can then be used to help the next generation to avoid the risks or partake in the beneficial activities.

Many times the studies looking at general changes show a substantial reduction in the risk for developing breast cancer.  This can be 30, 40 or even 70% or more.  I always contend that these benefits are seen with just the general recommendations.  When you add in the other studies that look at the smaller contributors and get much more specific about an overall lifestyle that lowers your risk of breast cancer, the near elimination of breast cancer can be envisioned.

And yet, this story is not what is promoted by the organizations tasked with educating you about breast cancer and the organizations that take your millions and millions of dollars in the name of breast cancer.  All this money is wasted on the myth of a “cure” and early detection.  Maybe it’s a conflict of interest by large commercial donors?  Maybe it’s the fear of not giving out information until it is absolutely, positively set in stone (as a reminder—it took some 40-50 years before the full message on the dangers of cigarette smoking to be mainstream—so don’t hold your breath).

I have always maintained that we still need research.  But we need it to determine why those who make all these changes still develop breast cancer.  Because it happens.  But the numbers are so small, THESE women never see a benefit from the research that these organizations spend mass amounts of money on.

It’s a hard call, but what do we do with the other, dominant percentage of breast cancer cases that were a result of egregious lifestyle choices?  The smokers and meat and potatoes type that haven’t exercised since grammar school?  At what point do we say that the money spent for screening and treatment of these sufferers should go towards research for the small portion of breast cancer patients to answer the really hard “why” questions?

These are rhetorical questions that we may never have an answer for.  And maybe it’s putting the cart before the horse.  Maybe we’ve done such an incredibly pathetic job of educating the public that breast cancer can be prevented that it’s not a fair position.  In this case (and I think this is most likely where the problem lies), the national organizations should NO LONGER GET YOUR MONEY.  Unless, of course, they are organizations like the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), who put out this particular study.

The AICR, along with the World Cancer Research Fund, had previously put out information about lifestyle behaviors that have a very strong ability to lower your risk of all cancers.  Body fatness, physical activity, foods that promote weight gain, plant foods, red and processed meats and limit alcohol intake (2 for men and 1 for women a day). In this study, researchers looked at what happened to the risk of breast cancer when 6 of these recommendations were followed (body fatness, physical activity, foods that promote weight gain, plant foods, red and processed meats, and alcohol).  Here’s what they found:

  1. Risk was cut by a respectable 60% in women who met at least five recommendations.
  2. When they looked more closely at the data, three recommendations (body fatness, plants foods, moderate alcohol intake) were responsible for almost all of the protection.
  3. Adherence to just these 3 recommendations cut risk 62% overall.

Three recommendations.

A measly three lifestyle factors to adhere to cut risk substantially.  We can no longer sit behind the glass bubble of “it’s just genetic” when the research on just the most simple changes, is so compelling.

THESE are the types of groups you should be giving your money to.  Period.

Lifestyle, hormones, and risk of breast cancer – (03-26-01)

by

Lifestyle, hormones, and risk of breast cancer

This is an interesting viewpoint in risk of breast cancer. It is nice to see an article that does not mention mammograms as a preventative measure for breast cancer (it is not in any way, shape or form…). It does relate caloric intake to the risk of breast cancer. Lower caloric intake will result in impaired ovarian function which in turn will lower risk of breast cancer. Remember from previous updates that caloric restriction is the most consistent and predictable way to prolong lifespan. This may be one possible mechanism by which this occurs.

bmj.com Jasienska and Thune 322 (7286): 586

Read entire article here

Side Effects of Blood Pressure Medication-Women Better Read This

by

Calcium Channel Blockers (think “dipine” or “amil” names) are common blood pressure medications.  Much like every drug, this class comes with its list of side effects, but I’ll bet you didn’t know this was on the list.

Every drug comes with side effects.  That’s the price we pay to mess with physiology the way Mother Nature intended (which is what all drugs do–they mess with the way your body is supposed to be working).  The game we play is to make sure the side effects are not as dangerous as the disease state that is being treated.  Seems pretty simple, right?

If only.

There are hundreds of different types of blood pressure medications and fall into several classes: diuretics, beta blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and angiotensin II receptor blockers.  And, as mentioned, they all have side effects.  Some of them, like the beta blockers, I can’t even figure out why we’re still using them for blood pressure since they clearly lead to diabetes and stroke.  I’ve covered many of the known side effects of all these classes of drugs in a previous blog article that can be read by clicking here.

However, there is a new side effect identified in this particular article that should make every women sit up and take notice.

In a well designed study, researchers looked at the relationship between calcium channel blocker use and breast cancer.  This association was first identified in 1996, but lost any momentum within a few years, to be picked up some 17 years later by this group.  Here’s the details:

  1. There were 2763 women in the study, 880 of them with invasive ductal breast cancer, 1027 with invasive lobular breast cancer, and 856 with no cancer for controls.
  2. Use of calcium-channel blockers for 10 or more years increased risk of ductal breast cancer 240% and lobular breast cancer 260%.
  3. The risk was the same for all types of calcium-channel blockers  used.

While this study does not prove that this blood pressure medication contributed to the breasts cancers, it certainly doesn’t look good.  But here’s the kicker–the vast majority of prescriptions written for all blood pressure medications have been shown to be worthless for someone with stage 1 hypertension (systolic below 160 or diastolic below 99), essentially not having any effect on someone’s risk of heart attack, stroke or overall risk of death.

If a drug does nothing for the patient, then ANY side effects of that drug are unacceptable.  If that particular side effect is an increased risk of breast cancer from a blood pressure medication you didn’t need in the first place, I’m not sure there’s a word to describe this.

Fluorescent Marker w/ Hand-Held Sensor Can Detect Breast Malignancy – (04-19-01)

by

Fluorescent Marker w/ Hand-Held Sensor Can Detect Breast Malignancy

We are starting to see many alternatives to mammograms; many of which have a much better false positive rate. Given the high number of false positives with mammograms and the psychological distress associated with this, any alternative that is at least as effective should be welcomed with open arms. However, we should never forget that prevention is much, much better, easier and cheaper than a cure…

(article) A breast cancer detection technique using a conjugated fluorescent marker that targets malignant cells may become a safer, cheaper and more accurate alternative to mammography. “We have come up with a way to detect the function of cancer enzymes as a method of cancer detection,” said Dr. Britton Chance, who is a professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. “In other words, we are detecting cancer at the molecular level, but with a high discrimination.” Tricarbo-cyanine, encapsulated in a peptide, is injected intravenously and accumulates in breast tissue. Enzymes in malignant cells degrade the peptide, releasing tricarbo-cyanine which fluoresces under an external red light source. The fluorescence can be imaged with a hand-held detector. The technique does not require a radiologist and “has outreach possibilities for undeserved populations of women who can’t get to a clinic or a hospital for an X-ray,” said Dr. Chance at a news conference at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society on Wednesday. So far this approach has been tested in a group of 30 women and is now headed for phase II.

Gestagens May Reduce Estrogen’s Effects on Bone Resorption – (05-21-01)

by

Gestagens May Reduce Estrogen’s Effects on Bone Resorption

So, we add synthetic progesterone to synthetic estrogen to protect against endometrial and breast cancer, right? But, by adding them in, this study suggests that the synthetic progesterone reduces the synthetic estrogens’ ability to protect bone. Does anyone see a problem here?

JCEM — Abstracts: Tobias et al. 86 (3): 1194

Read entire article here