LifeCare Chiropractic

The Best Chiropractic Care in Mesa, Arizona

cancer prevention

Garlic consumption and cancer prevention – (10-30-00)

by

Garlic consumption and cancer prevention

Here we go again. This is another study looking for what it should–the effects of natural substances on health. And using the WHOLE food, not an extract in pill form. Nature put it there for us to use, not try to identify the active components, extract them and concentrate them in a pill. Whole foods are always the best way to get our nutrition and maintain good health.

AJCN — Abstracts: Fleischauer et al. 72 (4): 1047

Read entire article here

Seniors Choose vitamins Over Healthy Diet for Cancer Prevention – (10-09-00)

by

Seniors Choose vitamins Over Healthy Diet for Cancer Prevention

Never forget that man will never rival nature. Whole foods are always the best route to go to protect our health. With a healthy diet, a minimum of a good quality multivitamin, extra vitamin C and E, calcium and an essential fatty acid is all that should be needed.

Results of a new survey suggest that older Americans prefer to take vitamin supplements rather than make dietary changes to reduce their risk of cancer. The findings are disturbing, according to researchers, since nutrients and vitamins in fruits, vegetables and whole grains are believed to significantly reduce cancer risk. In contrast, the effects of vitamin supplements on cancer risk are largely untested, according to the American Institute for Cancer research (AICR), the Washington, DC-based group that conducted the survey. “We’ve known for some time that usage of dietary supplements is on the rise, but we still don’t know a great deal about how, or if, these substances affect cancer risk,” Melanie Polk, director of nutrition education at AICR, commented in a statement. “The fact that so many Americans — especially older Americans — are seeking cancer protection in pills and powders is alarming.” “The emphasis on the importance of eating a mostly plant-based diet…for lower cancer risk should be an important part of disease prevention and health promotion efforts,” Polk said.

Breast Cancer Prevention Medical Style: As Sick as it Gets

by

In no way did I intend on this coinciding with the Angelina Jolie thing, but it is certainly relevant.  Only a small percentage of risk of cancer comes from your genetics.  Even the greatest risk factor we know of for breast cancer, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, while 80% of these women will go on to develop breast cancer over a lifetime, this means that 20% will not.

Luckily for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, the 20% doesn’t happen merely by chance.  A few examples include:

The list list longer, but you get the idea.  And remember, this is for those women who carry the greatest genetic risks for development of breast cancer.  For everyone else, the picture is far, far brighter.  Some experts believe that genetics play a role in less than 10% of breast cancer cases (which does NOT even take into account the ways to lower the risk for those already at a genetically higher risk).  That leaves you with a much greater than 90% chance to avoid breast cancer over your lifetime.

The list of ways to lower your risk of breast cancer is very long (you can check for specific medical references by scrolling through the breast cancer section of the website by clicking here).  But here are a few potent factors:

  1. No smoking
  2. Exercise
  3. Plant based lifestyle including non-GMO soy and flax
  4. A diet high in omega 3 fats and low in omega 6 fats
  5. An anti-diabetic lifestyle (prediabetes is a massive risk factor for breast cancer)
  6. Stress reduction such as meditation, prayer, biofeedback
  7. Keeping calorie intake on the lower end (calorie restriction without nutrient restriction)

While there are many, many more, just sticking with these 6 will pretty much wipe out all but the highest risks of breast cancer.

However, if you’re not willing to do all this hard work, there is no need to worry because mainstream medicine is trying to ride in on its white horse to save the day.  And of course, this involves better living through chemistry.

In this particular article, researchers evaluate the outcomes of trying to use drugs, specifically the selective estrogen modulating drugs Tamoxifen and Raloxifene.  These drugs are already approved by the FDA to be used in high risk women to prevent breast cancer from occurring.  But just how well did this work out?

  1. Tamoxifen and raloxifene reduced invasive breast cancer by 7 to 9 cases in 1000 women over 5 years.
  2. Neither drug reduced breast cancer–specific or all-cause mortality rates (are you paying attention here?).
  3. Both drugs increased blood clot embolism by 4 cases in 1000 women.
  4. Tamoxifen increased the incidence of endometrial cancer and cataracts.

Wow!  Where do we sign up??  What woman wouldn’t want to drop her risk by 0.9% over 5 years and get the bonus of endometrial cancer or a pulmonary embolism?

Stimulation of Cdx2 homeobox gene by butyrate in colon cancer – (03-14-02)

by

Stimulation of Cdx2 homeobox gene by butyrate in colon cancer

While the title may be a little technical, this is additional support on the benefits of a combination of soluble fiber and probiotics on intestinal health and cancer prevention. Remember that friendly bacteria in the gut digest the soluble fiber to produce short chain fatty acids, one of which is butyrate. Personally, I think the media did a tremendous disservice by sensationalizing the results of one trial that did not show a benefit of fiber in colon cancer. Of course, the media did not mention that the study did not examine intestinal flora nor did they differentiate insoluble fiber from soluble.

Gut — Abstracts: Domon-Dell et al. 50 (4): 525

Read entire article here

Pancreatic Cancer: 3 VERY Scary Findings, 2 Great Ones

by

Of all the cancers out there, pancreatic cancer is high on the list of scary ones. Treatment is expensive, debilitating and really does little to extend life except in unusual circumstances. Look at it this way–if Steve Jobs and Patrick Swayze could not find resources to help them, what chance does the average person stand?

I don’t mean to sound negative, but it’s a very harsh reality when it comes to this particular cancer. Part of this may be due to the difficulty in diagnosis (it has a tendency to mimic other conditions like ulcers, abdominal pain, reflux and gallbladder problems), but I think it is just a very hard cancer to treat.

And the rates of pancreatic cancer are increasing at an alarming rate.

Just in case all the above has you scared, good. Maybe this will be enough to make the necessary changes to your lifestyle because pancreatic cancer is heavily preventable.

Sure, smoking, a family history of pancreatic cancer and a history of acute or chronic pancreatitis are risk factors that most know about. I remember being in a room with an oncologist telling a patient that we don’t really know why this person got pancreatic cancer because there were none of the traditional risk factors noted above.  Sad that the oncologist apparently does not read medical journals.

So what do we know of that contributes to pancreatic cancer risk besides family history, smoking and pancreatitis?  The list starts here:

  1. Prediabetes and diabetes are massive risk factors for developing pancreatic cancer.
  2. Low levels of vitamin D have been linked to pancreatic cancer.
  3. Higher intakes of compounds from tea, cabbage, fruits and wine led to a whopping 41% reduction.
  4. Soft drinks greatly increase the risk of pancreatic cancer.
  5. Obesity combined with inactivity doubles your risk of pancreatic cancer.

The list certainly gets longer, but you get the idea.

Just in case you STILL don’t get the idea, let me point out this particular study.

Researchers looked at the levels of certain heavy metals and certain minerals to see how they related to the risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Normally, I don’t blog on these types of studies, but the levels of risk and protection were so striking that I couldn’t pass it up. Here’s what they found:

  1. Cadmium (high in cigarette smoke, certain fertilizers) increased risk 358%
  2. Arsenic (mining, smelting and pesticides) double the risk
  3. Lead exposure topped the risk chart at 626% increased risk.

On the flip side, researchers found that two elements were very protective against pancreatic cancer:

  1. Higher levels of selenium (very high in Brazil nuts) led to a whopping 95% lower risk (yes–that’s almost a complete elimination of risk).
  2. Nickel (found in beans, cocoa, hazel nuts, almonds and  pistachios) led to a still-honorary 73% lower risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

Looking at these numbers, you can see that, with the right choices, the risk of one of the scariest cancers known to man can be almost eliminated.

As would be expected, the American Cancer Society lists only cigarette smoking as a risk factor for the development of pancreatic cancer. While the above study is not concrete, the recommendation to eat more Brazil nuts and avoid heavy metal exposure would certainly benefit everyone with little risk involved.

Prior to reading this blog post, were you aware that pancreatic cancer was preventable?

JUST HOW EFFECTIVE IS PSA SCREENING?

by

It seems like all cancer screenings are coming under fire recently.  Rational, scientific attemps have been made to knock mammography off its pedastal, but emotions run very high on this topic and few see through this to the real story.  Interestingly, the mammography “debate” is not new and may have been started some 22 years ago in the medical literature, when well known researchers began to question whether we should be putting all of our hopes into mammography.

PSA testing is no different.  Not only are there questions about its effectiveness, but we really need to face the reality that some serious harms can come from overdiagnosis.  Again, this is not new news.  I had reviewed an article over 6 years ago looking at just how ineffective PSA screening was at saving lives.

This particular review article puts a more specific number on the effectiveness of PSA screening.  Overall, researchers found that, to prevent a single death from prostate cancer over the course of 11 years, 1055  men would have to be screened.  That’s basically a thousand-to-one odds.  If this is what we hang our hats on when it comes to cancer “prevention” in this country, we truly are sunk.

In this country, we continue to rely on early detection as a sick sort of prevention, despite the literally thousands of research studies finding lifestyle factors that promote and poor lifestyle factors that prevent many types of cancers.  It’s pretty clear cut.  Lifestyle prevents cancer in the first place so that we do not have to rely on screening to “prevent” cancer.

I have provided a more in-depth review of a variety of ways to lower your risk of prostate cancer in the past and will not go into it again here.  Just take this information and understand that cancer early detection tests (let’s not call them “prevention” tests) are a crap shoot at best, with massive levels of harm being done with false positives and detections of cancers that will likely never progress.  Go into your screening as well educated as you can be.

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.

COMMONLY DEFICIENT SUPPLEMENT LOWERS RISK OF PROSTATE CANCER

by

Vitamin D has been all over the research the past few years.  This particular study looks at the ability of the active form of Vitamin D to halt the progression of prostate cancer cells in the lab and finds.  While it doesn’t prove beyond a doubt, it is yet another study pointing to the importance of optimal levels of Vitamin D in prostate cancer prevention.

While the increase in concern and knowledge about Vitamin D has been great, it still seems like the message remains insufficient.  There are a few steps that are being misunderstood when it comes to full utilization of Vitamin D in our bodies.

First is the general knowledge that pretty much everyone is deficient, and almost everyone is sub-optimal in their Vitamin D levels.  It’s gotten to the point that we hardly ever check levels anymore because everyone (with only 2 exceptions that I can recall–one being my own levels) is suboptimal.  So, while the learning curve of awareness of deficiency is progressing, it’s still too slow.  Most that we interact with in the clinic are not aware of the levels of deficiency.

Next, after awareness comes concern with personal levels.  There is an increase in labs that I’ve seen ordered by specialists and primary care docs that include 25-(OH) Vitamin D levels.  But the lab normals always show values greater than 30 ng/dl as being normal.  They are not.  The experts on Vitamin D, like Dr. Micheal Hollick and the www.vitamindcouncil.orgcontinue to contend that optimal may be as high as 70 ng/ml.  Thus, in patients with conditions such as obesity, heart disease, higher risks of cancer, diabetes or autoimmune conditions, 30 ng/ml is not likely to cut it.

Lastly, even if the levels are recognized as being too low, the recommendations for supplementation run too low.  Patients coming in under 30 ng/ml on their bloodwork may be told to take 1,000 or even 2,000 IU / day.  In general, 1,000 IU / day will raise the blood levels 10 ng/ml.  Doing the math, if you need to raise your levels 30 or 40 points, you need to take that much in addition to what you may have already been taking.  More often than not, the recommendations are too low.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2011.01175_12.x/abstract