Health Research
Consultation
Education
|
Health Research |
October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month that is winding down. Again, we are inundated with ads, predominantly from the Susan G. Komen Foundation, promoting early detection screenings and drugs as a means to prevent breast cancer. There is no mention of preventive lifestyle approaches supported by scientific evidence as the most successful way to avoid this disease. It’s disappointing and frustrating that there is little progress in stamping out this disease that robs women of a long healthy life and destroys them at increasingly younger ages. The Susan G. Komen Foundation has become very powerful and influential in the way women think about breast cancer, yet it never mentions anything about prevention and lifestyle. Isn’t this odd? Since 1985 October has been the month that women don pink ribbons, run races and walk-a-thons for “the cure” and schedule their yearly mammograms. What has the foundations efforts and money collection netted? Forty years ago the breast cancer rate was 1 in 20; today it is 1 in 8; and in some instances, greater than 1 in 5. The rate has increased. Dare I ask; shouldn’t it be declining? Sincere people donate their time and hard earned money; for what? More troubling is the result of a large new study revealing that specialized “CAD” computer software designed to detect suspicious areas in mammograms has failed to improve breast cancer detection. Further, it increases a woman’s risk of getting a “false positive” meaning she is told she has an abnormal mammogram when she’s actually cancer-free. This scenario creates a vicious cycle of re-testing resulting in more exposure to radiation and increased emotional trauma for the subjects. Most medical experts believe the rise in breast cancer is due to improved screening, diagnostic tests and reporting, which may be contributing factors. However, old and new evidence strengthens the link between breast cancer, the environment, exposure to synthetic chemicals and radiation more than previously thought. The Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action Group state in their 2004 Report that there are links between environmental toxins and breast cancer.1 The Breast Cancer Fund is the only national, non-profit organization that focuses on identification and elimination of environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer. The Breast Cancer Action Group is a non-profit national education advocacy group devoted to ending the breast cancer epidemic. We have been vigorously exploring the cause of breast cancer for at least 40 years. It is clear, lifestyle changes can reduce the risk of breast cancer. The key component is PREVENTION…yes, prevention, which means to keep something from happening, to avert, or to anticipate or encounter in advance.Early detection is discovering or finding something hidden or obscure. Diagnosis is the act or process of identifying or determining the nature of a disease through examination/screening. Once an abnormality has been detected through screening, prevention is not an option. The mammogram, a diagnostic test, is considered the gold standard of preventive care today. Consequently, the public has developed a false sense of security from annual mammograms. The politically charged world of medicine has spun the definition of prevention to mean early detection and /or screening, bastardizing the “real” definition. As the Federal Government increasingly involves itself in healthcare, quality diminishes as do outcomes of care and individual access and choice. John C. Bailar III, editor of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Journal in 1976, questioned that “the possible benefits of mammography have received more benefits in the literature than have its defects”, also stating mammography may eventually cause more deaths from breast cancer than it prevents”. 2 This is a strong statement. Could it be that the very instrument we depend on for detection is a risk factor? The literature says this is so. A meta-analysis of scientific studies in 1997 showed that screening women between the ages of 40-49 resulted in an increase in deaths from breast cancer for the first ten years after screening began. A significant two-fold increase in breast cancer deaths after three years of screening was found. 3 According to the Cancer Prevention coalition, radiation from routine mammograms poses a significant cumulative risk (over time) of causing breast cancer. And according to www.BreastCancerFund.org lower-energy X-rays provided by mammography result in substantially greater damage to DNA than would be predicted, and suggests that risk of breast cancer caused by exposure to mammography radiation may be greatly underestimated. Samuel S. Epstein, an international leading authority on the causes and prevention of cancer is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has been warning people for years about the dangers of mammography and states: “The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening…” “The high sensitivity of the breast, especially a young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40-50 who were mammogramed annually.” The American Cancer society and national Cancer Institute continue to push women into getting mammograms in their early 40’s and earlier for women who are predisposed to higher risk, even though young women often have very dense breast tissue that is more difficult to properly screen. The message that mammograms save lives is questionable and deserves further discussion. Janette D. Sherman, M.D., author of Life’s Delicate Balance, Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer wants women to understand that “mammograms do NOT prevent cancer; they can only find an existing cancer.”4 The cumulative radiation damage to DNA from annual mammograms over a women’s lifetime increases the risk of developing breast cancer in later years.5 Mammograms have a 50% to 75% accuracy rate with many false positives that lead to anxiety, unnecessary medical exams and costs and over treatment, primarily due to legal ramifications that could ensue based on improper follow-up. Not all radiological equipment produces high quality results, and interpretation is subjective.6 As of November 2009, routine mammograms are no longer recommended across the board for all women starting at the age of 40. A federal advisory board, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force cited ineffectiveness and increased risk of harm in premenstrual women. They have changed their recommendation from annual to bi-annual screenings, and raised the recommended starting age to 50. As with most change, not everyone is happy. Recently the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued their breast cancer screening guidelines, recommending mammography every 1-2 years for women ages 40-49 and an annual mammogram for women age 50 or older. With this confusion what is a woman to do? There is hope. It is imperative that you rely on your personal physician and conventional medical institutions only as partial sources of information regarding your health and breast cancer; not the end all, be all. This is your health and your body. You do not need permission to seek information from other scientific resources. Stay informed and stretch outside the scope of conventional thinking. If affirmation is what you need, resources from this article and www.preservion.com are a good start. Breast Cancer Risk Factors Hormonal factors
Lifestyle factors
Genetic factors
Environmental factors
Dietary factors
Drug factors
Some Suggested Lifestyle Changes Seventy five to 85% of chronic illness, disease and health conditions, including cancer, are due to lifestyle behaviors. Some experts believe it is ninety percent. Doesn’t it make perfect sense to evaluate your behaviors and engage in choices that cause the least harm? Exercise regularly. It increases blood flow and oxygen transfer throughout the body and stimulates bone growth. Walking, a gentle form of exercise can result in significant oxygenation and improvement. Studies show you can reduce your risk for breast cancer by 30% to 50% with just 30 minutes of aerobic exercise daily, three to five times weekly. Organic foods. Eat a nutritious, wholesome diet that includes vegetables of all colors, fruits, legumes, whole grains, flaxseed, organic meats and fish. Organic foods do not contain toxic chemicals from pesticides and herbicides. Many studies report they are more nutritious than non-organic foods. A plant-based diet rich in phytochemicals is like natural medicine. Cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cabbage, kale, Brussels sprouts and cauliflower are very beneficial for breast health. These vegetables slow down the action of estrogen in breast cancer cells and inhibit tumor growth. Fish Oils/Omega-3 fatty acids are extremely beneficial in reducing not only breast cancer and cholesterol levels, but heart disease as well. Wild salmon, albacore tuna, sardines and herring are especially good sources of EPA and DHA. Use fish oil supplements or cod liver oil if you are unable to consume fresh fish. Always be sure to check out where the supplements were made and where the fish oil comes from. Consider adding ground flaxseed to your diet daily along with walnuts and pumpkinseeds. Recently walnuts have made the news about their medicinal and nutritional value. Here is what walnuts contain:
Balancing Hormones. Progesterone, estrogen and thyroid hormones are particularly imperative. They play a vital role in breast health and work in tandem with one another. Because the majority of women are estrogen dominant and produce less progesterone and thyroid hormone as they age, it is prudent to evaluate hormone levels by symptoms, observation and lab testing, if necessary. Iodine and the lack thereof, is showing a strong connection with an increase of breast cancer. Countries where iodine levels are high, like Japan, have lower rates of breast cancer than countries where iodine intake is low. We no longer get iodine from our foods. They have been stripped of their value years ago through processing and the use of toxic chemicals. Breast Feeding. There is a seven percent risk reduction for breast cancer in women who were breastfed as babies. Several studies report that breast feeding immunizes the mother as well as the infant. Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has found that breast feeding for at least six months decreases the risk of contracting luminal cancer, and a type of cancer known as triple negative cancer, which is common among young African Americans and Hispanics. This is not new information. Vitamin D3. The use of vitamin D and exposure to sunlight has consistently shown to dramatically reduce the growth of cancer tumors, including breast cancer. Over 75 percent of all breast and prostate cancers could be avoided through vitamin D therapy alone, yet the American Cancer Society does not promote taking this vitamin. Dietary sources that contain vitamin D3, including salmon, sardines, and cod liver oil, in addition to moderate daily exposure to direct sunlight is the key to prevention. A lack of vitamin D can increase your breast cancer risk. Clinical research reveals people with low blood levels of vitamin D are much more likely to be diagnosed with and die of cancer than those with higher levels. Stefan Glück, M.D., Ph.D., director of the breast cancer institute at the University of Miami, notes that you can pick up about 12,000 IU of vitamin D with just 10 minutes of direct sunlight exposure. For those living in higher altitudes, especially during winter months supplementing with vitamin D3 is imperative. Michael Holick, M.D., a foremost expert on vitamin D research recommends up to 5000 IU of vitamin D per day, but typically 2000 IU should be sufficient. Other Supplements. A combination of a good multi-vitamin that includes minerals such as calcium, magnesium and boron, folate and other B vitamins, along with vitamins A, C, D, E and selenium and amino acids is foundational. This combination is high in anti-oxidants and cancer-protective nutrients. Tumeric- A medicinal Indian cooking spice, turmeric, responsible for the rich color of curry, has the miraculous ability to promote and protect health especially against cancer. An indigenous plant of Asia and India, it has been use for over 5,000 years to improve health. Turmeric breaks down toxins, stimulates the immune system, is a powerful anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant. It specifically stops breast cancers from growing by causing cancer cells to die, stopping new blood vessels from growing and feeding tumors, and helping to prevent metastasis (the spread of tumors). If you have cancer and choose to use chemotherapy, turmeric can be extremely beneficial in helping to enhance the effectiveness of chemotherapy against your tumor while protecting your organs from its damaging effects. Always buy "organically grown" turmeric to avoid any harmful chemicals and pesticides. Add about 1/4th teaspoon to vegetables, soups, grains or other dishes near the end of cooking. Turmeric should be cooked but not over-cooked. You can also take turmeric as a supplement. Two 500mg capsules a day is the recommended dose. Visit www.drchristinehorner.com for more detailed information. Alternative Screening Methods Anti-Malignin Antibody Screen (AMAS) Test – Harvard trained biochemist and physician, Sam Bogoch, M.D. uncovered after 20 years of research, a blood test to reveal whether antibodies to cancer are present. He found that anti-malignin antibody serves as a reliable marker for ALL cancers. Dr. Bogoch’s research found that the AMAS test is 95% accurate on the first test and 99% accurate when repeated. The test can detect cancer up to 19 months before conventional tests can find it. If it’s any consolation, the FDA approved this test in 1977. This test is available through Oncolab at 888.852.2723 and is available to all practicing clinicians. Ultra Sound scans (sonograms) use high frequency waves to record an image. Tumors have different sound patterns than cysts or normal tissue. They are recommended for women with dense breasts because they can detect, more successfully, small tumors not detected by mammograms. 7 Thermography is a non-invasive FDA approved technology that uses a high-resolution camera that reads the temperature of your body and converts it into an infrared heat image visible on a computer. This image is unique for each woman. Studies have shown that an abnormal infrared image is the single most important indicator of high risk for developing breast cancer. Thermography can identify suspicious activity at the earliest stages prior to a tumor found during a mammography screening. Clinical screening/hands on is found to be as useful as mammography minus the radiation and discomfort. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study and others have reported that mammograms are no better than clinical breast exam, meaning no difference in mortality rates between women who were screened with mammography, and those who were not. 8, 9 Multiple Resonance Imagings (MRI’s) do not use radiation and are particularly recommended for high-risk women and for women who may have had a recurrence of breast cancer. They are also recommended for younger women with denser breast tissue. Molecular Breast Imaging (MBI) is a breast exam deemed more accurate than a mammogram. This technique has been found to catch three times the number of breast cancer cases as mammography. It's said to be especially effective for women with denser breast tissue who are usually at a higher risk for developing the disease. MBI
works by injecting the patient with a radiotracer which helps to track
the behavioral difference between cancerous tissue and normal tissue.
One study using MBI found 10 of 13 cancer cases in a sample group of 375
patients. In the same group, mammography found just three of those 13
cancers. This is encouraging news. MBI was also found to have a higher percentage of biopsies that resulted in the discovery of an actual cancer (28 percent with MBI compared with 18 percent with mammography). Better yet, MBI is also relatively inexpensive. This new technique is not welcome by all. Researchers are proposing that it be used only as an adjunct to mammography, not as a replacement. Reasoning should be the opposite in that this technique should be used first and if suspicion occurs, other testing can be explored. For more information click http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748346/ Mammograms are thought to be an "early warning system" for breast cancer. Mammography is a detection method. It does not prevent breast cancer. Excessive compression of the breast (like during a routine mammogram) can actually break apart cancerous cell masses and cause further irreparable damage. 10-11 Mammography also results in a high number of "false positive" results whereas MBI found 10 percent more cases of REAL cancer (28 percent compared to mammography's 18 percent). Think before you select Pink The Think Before You Pink campaign by Breast Cancer Action http://bcaction.org/ is a more informed anti-cancer organization led by Barbara Brenner in San Francisco. Breast Cancer Action does NOT accept money from pharmaceutical companies or any corporations that profit from the disease. This is a refreshing idea. The American Cancer Society (ACS), on the other hand, takes money from companies that profit from cancer. The ACS is known to be one of the wealthiest non-profits in the world, appears to have no genuine interest in PREVENTING cancer, but rather focuses on detection and treatment that generates billions of dollars in profits. Last year, the National Institutes of Health, the nation's top agency for health-related research, allocated $763 million to the study of breast cancer, more than double what it committed to any other cancer. Moreover, cardiovascular disease kills more women than cancer, but gets much less attention. Breast Cancer Action encourages women to “Think Before You Pink”. It means, don't be fooled into buying "pink" products unless you know exactly how much money is going to cancer research and where the money's going. A large portion of "pink product" money goes to the Susan G. Komen foundation, which is not high on my list of women friendly organizations. This organization also funds abortion which defies all laws of nature in protecting women and life in general. They also appear to cater to big corporate supporters rather than actually promoting prevention and protecting women. To learn more about the Susan G. Komen foundation read the book Pink Ribbons, Inc. http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/K/king_pink.html As Breast Cancer Action points out, a lot of the "pink products" marketing is nothing more than Pinkwashing -- a ploy by product marketers to boost sales of products that actually contribute to breast cancer risk! As an example, many cosmetics and personal care products are loaded with cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream, yet these products proudly display pink ribbons. This is added insult to injury as many women think they are purchasing products that are contributing to decreasing cancer risk. The Breast Cancer Action group continues to work diligently applying pressure to everyday and beauty product companies to “come clean”. The bottom line is lifestyle behaviors are the number one defense in the prevention of breast cancer. I’m not suggesting that anyone should avoid screening. What I am suggesting is do your research, make your decisions based upon facts, not upon fear and scare tactics often used by medical authorities. You need to look at yourself as a “whole” entity and evaluate your lifestyle. Do you smoke? Do you drink alcohol in excess? Are you taking hormones in the form of birth control or HRT? Are you overweight? Are you over-stressed? Are you exposed to environmental toxins? Do you suffer from sleep deprivation? Do you consume a poor diet? Do not rely on screening and detection methods only, as prevention. These are diagnostic tools and do not prevent breast cancer. Combine a healthy lifestyle with alternative screening methods to keep yourself in tune and decrease your risks of breast cancer. Resources: Great
websites for further information: Keeping you “in the know”… There are many exciting studies going on around the world of natural health and healing making it impossible to keep up with everything. Thumbing through one of my latest journals, I came across a study worth noting. Research was conducted to compare the efficacy of spinal manipulation against disk surgery in patients who suffered from sciatica and lower back disk herniation. Sixty percent of patients improved from spinal manipulation to the same degree as surgery. The other forty percent who did not fare as well, agreed to surgery as a secondary measure with excellent outcomes. Think about less invasive options FIRST, then resort to surgery if necessary. Once you have surgery, there is no going back. J.Manipulative Physiol Ther, 2010. In the News Your Vote Makes a Difference Recently, Pinellas County voted to REMOVE fluoride from their drinking water by a 4-3 vote which surprised many because it was just about eight years ago they were hoodwinked into adding it into their system. As the old saying goes, elections have consequences, and a big “thank you” goes to the newest Pinellas County commissioner, Norm Roche who made the motion to stop fluoridating the water. Interestingly, he is not opposed to the treatment, though he is opposed to the government making these type decisions. Finally someone has exercised common sense. “If you’re going to put in the water a chemical that does not have anything to do with the cleanliness of purifying the water, then that needs to be in the hands of the public, the citizens need to vote on it,” Roche said. The Florida Dental Association has reacted with outrage. “Our community water fluoridation programs are vital to the public health” said Dr. Cesar Sabates. Evidently Dr. Sabates has ignored the research over the years. Fluoride is discharged from fertilizers and aluminum factories. Health concerns are directly linked to bone cancer, fractures and osteoporosis, tooth enamel loss and pitting and discoloration of teeth. Exposure comes from industrial pollution and from local water supplies. “The use of fluorine in tooth powder or paste should not be considered because it is unsafe,” said Dr. Basil Glover Bibby, an early pioneer of fluoride use. “Fluorine is poisonous and dangerous if administered by untrained persons.” This was written in Time Magazine in 1940. To better preserve your teeth, avoid fluoridated municipal water supplies, rinse your mouth after every meal, use toothpaste that does NOT contain fluoride or use bar soap. It’s the action of a good tooth brush that keeps gums strong and healthy, not fluoride! Need a speaker to stimulate your group or organization? Contact
Cindy A. Krueger, MPH. Her lectures are engaging, candid, humorous. Edited by Thomas Cline, MBA and MAP President of the International Association of Ethics Trainers and Sandra Cline, Editor in Chief of INTEGRITY TALK, the official publication of the International Association of Ethics Trainers. Visit: http://ethicstrainers.com Health Disclaimer: The information provided on this site should not be considered as personal medical advice. Readers should research and consult with appropriate healthcare practitioners on matters related to their personal health and well-being. The information and opinions on this site are believed to be accurate and scientifically sound, based upon the best judgment available to the author. References are noted where appropriate. The publisher is not responsible for errors or omissions.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Breast Cancer Prevention