Currently viewing the category: "cancer"

Random? Half Cancers Preventable

By On · Add Comment · In cancer, central obesity, health, healthy behaviors, illness, random, smoking, universe

Some people think we live in a random universe, nothing but probability–a chance for this, and a chance for that. Some also think that health is random. Some people get sick, others do not. A roll of the dice for the most part. In fact, that’s what insurance is for: you purchase insurance hoping that you won’t get sick, but if by chance you do…

This approach to health, however, is foolish. We know that health and wellness are not random. What we do regularly determines whether we will experience health or not. It certainly is about probability when it comes to our health. The more we engage in healthy behaviors, the greater the probability we will remain healthy; and the more we  engage in unhealthy behaviors, the greater the probability we will develop illness or disease. True, it’s never one hundred percent, as Jim Fixx showed that any fitness enthusiast can drop dead from a heart attack, while George Burns smoked cigars into his 100s. Go figure.

But what we do is still the most important determinant of health. Take a recent study that now shows 50% of all cancers are preventable. That’s right folks! And the big C is the second leading cause of death following another preventable condition…you got it–heart disease.

The numbers one and two killers in the U.S. are preventable. Smoking is blamed for 33% of all cancers, while 75% of lung cancers are due to smoking. Shoot, I used to smoke, I get it. I liked smoking, heck yeah…but I quit. Simple as that. My cancer risk went way down. Probabilities.

Here’s another: Obesity is responsible for 20% of all cancers in the U.S. Throw in booze, pollution, poor diet, prescription drugs by the pounds… Why, heck…of course cancer is the number two killer–people are poisoning themselves.

And the political perspective is that these people just don’t have enough resources. State smoking cessation programs are being financially undercut, and people don’t have money, or the insurance, to be treated once they get sick. Random.

But by quitting smoking, eating well, minimizing junk food (like sodas), and exercising regularly actually helps lessen the risk of heart disease and cancer. Not random.

Duh.

Low Cholesterol’s Cancer Link Illustrates Innate Intelligence

By On · Add Comment · In cancer, HDL cholesterol, health, heart disease, high cholesterol, innate intelligence, LDL, statins

Oh boy, here we go…so you know that I’m not shy about discussing my health. I’ve got nothing to hide, and I approach my health from a very proactive position. I also have a belief system that is integral to how I care for my health—I know that one day I am going to die, could be tomorrow, but for me to experience my life to the fullest today, I am quite certain that it requires me to care for my body as one of my most valuable assets. So I don’t obsess about “never getting sick,” I just treat my body like I love it, and I trust that it knows—through its innate intelligence–how to run my body, provided I treat it in the right ways. Simple.

So long-time readers of this blog will recall that I have high cholesterol. Have I ever been worried about it? No, never. Not even a little. In fact, I just had my annual physical in February. Once again, stellar health, thank you, thank you…athlete’s numbers…’cept I have high cholesterol.

If you’ve been following my story, you’ll recall that my doc (love him, bless his heart…and I mean that sincerely; he is the greatest) has, of course, recommended I go on statins. Now I’ve got my inner theories about it, regarding liability and stuff like that, but whatever…he knows I’m not going to take them. It’s simple: my HDL levels (“good” cholesterol) are above and beyond excellent. My total cholesterol to HDL ratio is at the “optimum” level. Ha ha ha…I’m in the absolute lowest risk category for heart disease: I’m not taking statins!

And my doctor knows this. I saw the perplexed look on his face when I pointed out those values to him (I guess that’s not the typical presentation of his high cholesterol patients). Shrugging it off, he still recommended the statins (and has every year for the last four). Sigh…

Okay, here’s the point of this piece: A recent study has shown that low levels of LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, in the absence of cholesterol lowering medications, has a strong link to cancer. What?! That’s right, and although we’ve known of this link for a long time (30+ years), this study was the first ever look at the low LDL-cancer link over an extended period of time (~19 years), and only in patients with no history of taking cholesterol-lowering drugs.

The results showed a couple things. One, the link cannot be due to taking statins since all subjects were statin-free throughout the study, and two, low cholesterol cannot be a byproduct of the cancer itself, since low LDL levels were observed well before any preclinical signs of cancer were present. In other words, statins don’t cause cancer, and cancer doesn’t cause low cholesterol. That we know.

What we don’t know is what the connection is. Hmmm…. Well let me give it a try: I believe that the body has an internal wisdom, an Innate Intelligence, that directs its operation. I believe this system is flawless. The body knows what to do at all times, and provided with the right fuel (whole, natural foods), necessary movement, proper bodywork and tension relief, adequate rest, adequate hydration, full, deep abdominal breath and minimal toxins, it will continue to operate flawlessly until it expires (which it will also do flawlessly).

However, too many people do not observe the natural laws of health—they eat poorly, fail to exercise regularly, ignore bodywork until they are in so much pain they can’t stand it, get little rest, drink too many sodas and not enough water, breathe shallowly from their chest, and take multiple drugs and other toxins, and so, yeah…their Innate Intelligence get severely challenged and fatigued; or it can only do the minimum with the resources it is given and becomes overloaded.

Further, we have a medical science that believes its own limited observations are the whole to the puzzle, and it make erroneous conclusions based on this small, piece-wise information, and yet it still believes it knows how to run the body better than Mother Nature does. And then we find out later that there is, in fact, more to the puzzle. You don’t say…?

But taking all the above points into consideration: Somehow when LDL cholesterol is disrupted from one of its many functions—that is, when it’s in too low of concentration—leads to cell overgrowth or cancer. Thus, not that statins, by lowering cholesterol, will cause cancer, but instead, perhaps this medical campaign to reduce cholesterol at all costs is an erroneous one. Perhaps the body produces what it needs (cholesterol can be both endogenous [created within] and exogenous [recieved from without]), and putting everybody on statins, particularly those with stellar numbers in all other health measurements, is just plain foolish.

No medical doctor or pharmaceutical researcher will ever know human physiology better than the human body does. Why the arrogant medical scientific (?) machine believes that it understands what cholesterol levels should be better than the body does is completely perplexing to me. If we were simply talking about a few hundred thousand people on statins because they have super-dangerously high levels that puts them at severe risk of heart disease, then…okay, I would understand. But to have tens of millions of Americans on these useless and dangerous cholesterol lowering drugs is purely idiotic.

So once again I have to believe it all comes down to three things–money (pharmaceuticals), liability (doctors protecting their asses) and job protection (medical professionals making sure they do not become obsolete). That’s the reality behind the cholesterol-statin push in the western world. I’m sure that’s why my doctor recommends statins to me despite my excellent health, I’m sure it’s why statins are called “the best selling drugs of all time,” and I’m sure it will continue until the next blockbuster drug addressing normal physiology comes along to take it’s place. Shouldn’t be too far off—stay tuned.

Sleeping Pills: They’re Killers

By On · Add Comment · In benzodiazepines, cancer, death, medications, rhythmic sleep patterns, sleep disorders, sleeping pills, Xanax

Bad news for seekers of sleep-help: Sleeping pills increase the risk of death, and the risk of developing cancer. A new study discloses that regular users of sleeping pills are four more times likely to die than people who don’t take them, not a good thing considering 5-10% of the U.S. adult population is said to be taking pharmaceutical sleep aids.

Sleeping pills that were linked to these risks included benzodiazepines such as temazepam or Xanax; non-benzodiazepines such as Ambien (zolpidem), Lunesta (eszopiclone) and Sonata (zaleplon); barbiturates; and sedative antihistamines.

According to the study, which looked at over 10,500 people, people who were prescribed up to 18 doses of sleeping pills a year were 3.6 times more likely to die than their counterparts who were prescribed none. And those prescribed between 18-132 doses were more than four times as likely to die. People  taking more than 132 doses a year had five times the risk of dying compared to those prescribed none. This was true regardless of age, but risks were highest among those individuals aged 18 to 55. Dang!

To add insult to injury, those people taking the highest doses of sleeping pills had the highest risk of developing cancers, including those of the esophagus, white blood cells, lung, colon and prostate. Although many potential explanations exist for the increases in cancers, preexisting health conditions was not one of them, leading one to conclude that the association to sleeping pills is meaningful.

Saying that, causation was not found in this study, only that there was an association between taking sleeping pills and increased cancers and death. In other words, it is not definite that the cancers and deaths were caused by the sleeping pills themselves. Equally likely is that people on the verge of either illness or death might have a disrupted enough sleep to warrant help. In fact, sleep problems are often the first to appear in medical or psychological conditions.

Dr. Daniel Kripke of the Scripps Clinic Viterbi Family Sleep Center, in La Jolla, CA and lead author of the study feels pretty strongly about the results, “For the particular sleeping pills studied, I do not see any time I would prescribe them.”

Other doctors disagree. For example, one Dr. Victor Fornari, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Zucker Hillside Hospital of the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System in Manhasset, N.Y. says,

“These are safe and effective medications when prescribed by a physician as part of a comprehensive treatment plan. Don’t stop taking these medications if you feel that you need them and are taking them with a doctor’s prescription, but be mindful that they shouldn’t be taken frivolously and there are alternatives such as avoiding napping, getting proper exercise, eliminating caffeine and doing other the kinds of things that improve sleep hygiene.”

Good points and good advice from both doctors. Here’s the bottom line: Sleeping pills, like all drugs, have their usefulness. Chronic use, however, is a problem. If you need sleep aids to fall asleep most nights, then something else is going on. And let’s not forget how habit forming these drugs can be–the more you take, the more you gotta take, an so on.

If you are having problems sleeping, do what the good doctor Forni suggests: exercise, eat well, reduce caffeine, avoid naps…but most importantly, keep a rhythm. Nothing in my books leads to sleep disorders faster than an erratic sleep schedule. Do yourself a favor, focus on good sleep patterns and get the rest you need for healthy mind and body. And stay away from the sleeping pills–they’re killers.

Silicon Breast Implant Scare in Europe and So. America (Part 2)

By On · Add Comment · In Britain, cancer, Costa Rica, Europe, France, Jean-Claude Mas, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), PIP breast implants, Poly Implant Prothese, silicone implants, South America
See Part One here.

PIP was placed into liquidation in March 2010 with losses of 9 million euros after the French medical safety agency recalled its implants. In a subsequent inspection of its manufacturing site, officials found it was using industrial silicone not approved by health authorities, and only about a tenth as expensive as approved gel.

An investigation found a majority of implants made by PIP since 2001 contained the unapproved gel. Industrial silicone is used in a range of products from computers to cookware.

While all breast implants can burst, especially as they get older, “these implants have a particular fragility” and appear to pose risks of rupture earlier in their life spans than other implants, said Jean-Claude Ghislain of the French health agency AFSSAPS. France’s state health care system normally pays for implants for medical reasons, such as after a mastectomy, but not for cosmetic implants. About 80% of those with the PIP implants had them for aesthetic reasons.

A PIP lawyer says the company recognizes that its products were defective but argues that it is being unduly singled out.

“The implants had flaws but the PIP implants are not the only ones on the market that had problems,” said lawyer Yves Haddad. “The reality is that everyone who makes implants has a percentage of failures.”

According to him, company founder Mas is in France but does not intend to make public comment.

What can I say? Shocking is all that comes to mind. My heartfelt sympathies go to the women affected by this shameful act. Hopefully, everything will be sorted out quickly and decisively; but most importantly, may all the women involved get resolve with the most minimal consequences.
*Most of this piece consists of excerpts coming from various sources including Reuters, Associated Press, BBC and ChannelNewsAsia

Silicon Breast Implant Scare in Europe and So. America (Part 1)

By On · Add Comment · In Britain, cancer, Costa Rica, Europe, France, Jean-Claude Mas, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), PIP breast implants, Poly Implant Prothese, silicone implants, South America
Jean-Claude Mas

Hold onto your hats with this one, folks–it doesn’t look pretty. The chief executive of a French company whose questionable breast implants are under international scrutiny is on the Interpol police agency’s most-wanted list.

According to recent reports Jean-Claude Mas is wanted by Costa Rican authorities for crimes involving “life and health.” It bears a photo of the 72-year-old Mas but does not elaborate on his alleged crimes or link to Costa Rica.

France’s health ministry Friday advised 30,000 women with breast implants (silicone) made by the now-bankrupt Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) to have them removed, saying that while there is no proven cancer risk, they could rupture.

Tens of thousands of women in over 65 countries around the world have the same implants, made from industrial rather than medical quality silicone, although some reports have the number as high as 300,000 worldwide. Most of them live in South America and western Europe.

250 British women are suing for compensation after being fitted with the suspect breast implants. Some 42,000 women in Britain are thought to have the implants, according to a government watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The silicone gel implants, made by PIP, appear to have an unusually high rupture rate and fears about possible health risks are spreading.

French and British authorities appear to be taking very different approaches to the potential dangers. France has take the costly (euro60 million or $78 million) and unprecedented steps of offering to pay for the 30,000 women to have their implants removed.

In Britain, Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies said:

“Women with PIP implants should not be unduly worried. We have no evidence of a link to cancer or an increased risk of rupture. If women are concerned they should speak to their surgeon.” 

According to Davies, removing implants “carries risks in itself.”  She does say, however, that women with these implants should be checked by their surgeons. 

MHRA in Britain says that France has reported rupture rates of around 5% for PIP implants, compared with 1% in the UK. Eight cases of cancer have been reported in women with the implants but the French authorities say these are not necessarily linked to faulty implants.

French  Health Minister Xavier Bertrand urged French women to have the implants removed as a “preventive measure,” but said that it was not “urgent.” The French Government did not move quickly enough for thousands of French women that marched on Paris to demand more attention to worries about what might be happening inside them. Images of leaky, blubbery implants and women having mammograms have been splashed on French TV. 

The implants were exported from France to Latin American countries such as Brazil and Argentina, and Western European markets including Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy. Local investigative police in Costa Rica said a man identified as Jean Claude Mas Florent was arrested by national police in Costa Rica’s Cartago province on June 1, 2010 for reckless driving under the influence of alcohol, a crime that can carry a jail sentence. He was given a court date in November 2010 but fled the country. It was unclear if there was any link between that arrest and the Interpol notice.

Concerns in France first surfaced about two years ago when surgeons started reporting abnormally high rupture rates, leading to a flood of legal complaints, the company’s bankruptcy and a scandal that has spread across the world.  

In the U.S., concerns about silicone gel implants in general led to a 14-year ban on their use, in favor of saline-filled implants. Silicone implants were brought back to the market in the U.S. in 2006 after research ruled out links to cancer, lupus and some other concerns.

Australia’s healthcare watchdog says about 8,900 of the implants were used in women there, some of whom had complained about splitting and leaking.

Germany’s medical safety board advised women with PIP implants to consult their doctors for checks, but stopped short of recommending their removal.

Go to part two here.

Irresponsible Drug Use the Common Theme

By On · Add Comment · In alcohol, cancer, chiropractic, drug abuse, drug overdose, drug use, Fentanyl, HIV, medical marijuana, narcotics, pain pills, pain relief, schedule 1 drugs

I was asked to say a few words about drug use, but not in the positive. Well darn-it, how could I resist? I’m guessing the request comes on the heels of my most recent posts on medical marijuana, of which I make no secret that I am in favor. But I wish to be very clear that my views on medical marijuana are not a condonation of recreational or irresponsible drug use. On the contrary, it’s precisely because I am so against the irresponsible and dangerous use of drugs that I advocate medical marijuana. When compared to the heavy-duty narcotics and other pain pills that are doled-out indiscriminately by doctors, believe me, medical marijuana is a blessing.

First and foremost, I am a former drug abuser, so I full well know what it means to be addicted. And I also know the down-side to heavy and/or long-term drug use. I have done it all, you name it, but alcohol and cocaine were my main weaknesses. I was also addicted to nicotine. For twenty years I smoked a pack a day.

My experience with drugs and alcohol were not all bad, though–I certainly learned a lot. If nothing else I came to understand how drugs can consume your life, how they can distort your view of the world, and how they could damage relationships. I got to experience how they could kill your motivation and prevent you from achieving your full potential. I was also exposed to a dangerous, seedy side of life that was full of mistrust, deceit, theft and violence, not to mention legal ramifications that could end a life of freedom by landing you behind bars for a long time. Yeah, lots of disadvantages to drugs; but for me it was a valuable education that will probably serve me, and hopefully others, for the rest of my life.

Despite medical marijuana being classified a schedule 1 controlled substance—high potential for abuse, lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision, and no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States (not entirely true, but that’s the definition)—it does have definite benefits. In my lifetime, I have seen it help HIV+ men keep from wasting away by giving them an appetite when they had none. I have seen it help cancer patients. One elderly couple, who are in their 90s, and whom I treat chiropractically, have shared their stories with me about the unrelenting pain they feel on a daily basis due to the cancer they each have; and how not even the Fentanyl* patches their doctors put them on would bring relief. Only medical marijuana did that. That’s right—these people in their 90s could only find relief from the intense pain they felt 24/7 by smoking a joint. They were not hippies; they had never had marijuana in their lives until they were sick with cancer. And it helped them. Duh!

Listen, drugs in and of themselves are not bad. They are helpful, even necessary, in many instances. I’ve needed the help of pain killers. An attack of acute appendicitis in 2006 showed me just how useful morphine could be (although not 100% effective and highly addictive). Whether antibiotics, sedatives, pain meds or steroids, each has a short-term use; but too many doctors give them to people long-term, as an easy yet temporary fix, instead of looking for real, long-term and self-directed solutions.  And it’s this that leads to serious problems.

Let me ask you a question. What do the following people have in common:

  • Jimi Hendrix, John Belushi, Sid Vicious, River Phoenix and DJ AM?
They all overdosed on recreational drugs.
And how about these people:
  • Elvis Presley, Keith Moon, Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson?
In both groups the common theme was an irresponsible use of the drugs. So regardless of whether a drug is illicit or legal, using it carelessly is foolish, and it can lead to illness or death.
That doesn’t mean drugs are bad by any means. Worshiping and relying on drugs, however, is unwise. And that goes for medical marijuana too. But if a substance can help cancer patients, people with HIV and people that suffer from chronic pain find relief, and maybe even help them survive (by increasing appetite), and that substance has low-risk side effects when compared to harder drugs like narcotics, then shouldn’t we use it? Shouldn’t we at least study it to see what medicinal benefits it might contain, and do our best to understand it?
That’s not me condoning drug use. I have lived both a life of drugs and a drug-free one—and I can say without a doubt that I prefer being straight, sharp and clear of mind. But I don’t knock recreational drug use, either, if the user can do so responsibly. However, rehab centers and city morgues are filled with people who couldn’t, and frankly, that could be you one day.  So if you value your life, it’s better to stay clean.
That, however, is the farthest I will go with wagging a finger at society, because I know we can’t both live in a culture where taking prescription drugs is considered ‘normal’, and expect others to not do so recreationally. That would be a fantasy.
*Fentanyl is a schedule 2 controlled substance–high potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use in treatment in U.S., and currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence (not true of marijuana).  Medical cannabis (currently a schedule 1–see above) would be more appropriately placed in this category, and probably most appropriately as a schedule 3.

My Airport X-ray Experience

By On · Add Comment · In airport security, brain cancer, cancer, fertilization, leukemia, radiation, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), x-ray scanners
It was just a matter of time before it would be necessary for me to make a Gargantuan decision–airport x-ray or pat-down.  What to do, what to do?  (sweat, sweat, sweat).

Uh…can I get the pat-down instead?

You mean opt-out?

Yeah, opt-out.

TSA person 1: We got an opt-out here?  TSA person 2: Opt-out!  TSA person 3: Opt-out?  TSA person 4: We got an opt-out!  (Sirens blaring)

I guess the airport security would rather not have to actually do a pat-down, as it took a full 10-minutes (no exaggeration) to get the frisker to come a-friskin’.

So I was a bit surprised by the lack of people requesting a pat-down.  I was the only one!  The airport (LAX) was particularly packed that afternoon, and everyone was walking through the radiation machines.  Hmmm…

I’ve heard lots of talk amongst my chiropractic clients and on news shows that people were going to refuse the scanner…but not that afternoon.  And I was again the only one to opt-out on my return from Houston’s Bush International airport.  Now the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) reports that most Americans prefer the scanners to a pat-down.  What the heck???

Are people really that trusting of the government?  I’m no conspiracy theorist, but why would anybody want more radiation than they already get from the dentist and doctors?  Duh!  Perhaps people don’t understand that x-ray can lead to cancer.  Did you ever wonder why they place lead shields on you when you get an x-ray?  Frickin’ duh!  And we don’t know if cumulative exposure increases risk.  If it does, then every time you travel by air should put you at greater risk.  Even worse is that studies have shown that men exposed to x-rays close to fertilization fathered children with heightened risk of developing leukemia.  Still OK with it?  Hey, it’s your life.

With the pat-down, it was no different than a typical police search (not that I know anything about that!!!)  Once my down-patter finally showed up (apologetic, of course), it was quick and painless.  He asked if I was worried about the excess radiation.  I said yes.  He said he understood–he was worried about his children getting brain cancer from cellphones.  I told him he could probably stop worrying.

So, overall, I found the pat-down pretty simple.  In a way I’m glad there weren’t many people waiting to get pat-down–it would have made my wait that much longer.  But do I get it?  Not really–but like I said…it’s your life.

Promising New Cancer Treatment

By On · Add Comment · In Argonne National Laboratory, cancer, chemotherapy, magnetic field, nanodiscs, side effects

Exciting news for cancer patients: A new technology shows promise of fighting cancer with magnetic fields. Tiny discs, called “nanodiscs,” that are just a millionth of a meter in diameter and around 60 billionths of a meter thick could be used to disrupt the membranes of cancer cells, causing them to self-destruct. This technology could replace chemotherapy and it’s harmful side effects as the treatment of choice for cancer patients.

The discs, made from an iron-nickel alloy, would be directed by a magnetic field to an area populated by cancer cells. In a study conducted at the Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago, this process was carried out by subjecting the discs to a low magnetic field for around ten minutes, which was enough to destroy 90 percent of cancer cells in tests.

That’s outstanding news as we need more alternatives to the pan-annihilation mechanism of chemotherapy. If this nanodisc technology continues to produce results, cancer patients can kiss the hair loss, nausea, fatigue, and myriad of other side effects away for good. Let’s keep our fingers crossed, as it’s been long time coming.

Steroids Cause Kidney Damage

By On · Add Comment · In American Society of Nephrology, anabolic steroids, bodybuilders, cancer, dialysis, exercise, kidney disease, muscular, obese, recovery time, workout

I know you think it can’t happen to you, cuz I’ve heard you say it. You’ve said that as long as you do them responsibly, steroids are totally safe. I heard you, muscle man–you told me so. And further, you’ve backed it up by telling me to prove it. Prove it that steroids cause physical problems–purely speculation, you said. Prove it.

OK, now I can: According to the most recent reports, anabolic steroids used by athletes and amateur bodybuilders can cause lasting kidney damage. New research presented at Friday’s American Society of Nephrology‘s 42nd Annual Meeting in San Diego, shows that men taking steroids for more than a decade had more severe kidney disease than men who were obese and not muscular.

Anabolic steroids are used by both men and women to increase muscle mass. They work by decreasing recovery time. So that 24 hours you and I need to recover from a workout aren’t needed by steroid users; these guys and gals only need a couple of hours, if that. They can hit it hard at the gym every day, several times a day. That’s how they get big. And the truth is that there has been no conclusive evidence linking steroid use to cancer, or any other disease for that matter. But now, unfortunately for steroid users, there is some proof.

How steroids damage the kidney is unclear, but damage them they do. Long-term steroid use can eventually lead to end-stage kidney disease, which requires dialysis or a kidney transplant. I have a client in my Beverly Hills chiropractic practice that is on dialysis. Think it doesn’t hamper his life? Guess again. Dialysis is every day, several hours of the day, forever. I don’t think it’s worth it, but you decide.

The good news is that the kidney damage caused by steroid use is reversible. In the study men who stopped using steroids, reduced their exercise and lost weight saw their kidney function improve. Nice. And for a few men, early medical treatment (medication) proved helpful. But researchers wanted to point out that steroid users in the later stages of kidney disease may improve some, but are left with chronic and irreversible kidney damage.

Something to think about.

Cancer Cut by Intense Exercise

By On · Add Comment · In cancer, exercise, health care costs, health care reform
Put this in your socialized health care pipe and smoke it–men who do heart-pounding exercises regularly are less likely to develop cancer. Yeah, you got it: more exercise, less cancer; less cancer, less cost. Quick, call your congressman–get health club memberships subsidized. Uh…dream on.

Nobody yet is pushing real health care reform, one where actual health enhancement finds its place in a national bill. Why not, you may ask? Because it’s a political and money game being sold to the public as concern for the greater good. Sure it’s about people…suuuuurrre!!! That’s why all the big money players are positioning themselves like never before. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, AMA–all former opponents to universal health care are now on board hoping to get it all into place. Think there’s some money to be made?

I wouldn’t be against this whole sham if I didn’t know that it isn’t going to change a thing that’s worthwhile. Same old medicine, same old s@$#. Findings like the one in the title of this post get a quick mention and then back to, “how can we sell more drugs, surgeries, procedures, politics, bull turds…?”

Here’s how: The latest findings came from a study out of Finland that looked at more than 2,500 men and their exercise habits for one full year. They followed up with the same men sixteen years later. They found that the men who exercised the most–not sissy exercising, either; intense exercise, stuff that made them sweat–were half as likely to develop cancer than the men that exercised the least. The researchers attributed the lower cancer rates to an increase in oxygen consumption. The cancers most reduced were of the stomach or intestines, lungs, prostate and brain.

I find this study very exciting. To me it makes real sense as to where our focus should be. But guess what: I’M ALONE! Nobody, and I mean nobody (OK, besides former Health and Human Services Secretarial Nominee, Tom Daschle) is looking at this information and realizing where health care needs to go to become “affordable”. The big sham is thinking that if we all pick up the tab for those who choose to not exercise, not lose weight, not get off heavy duty drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational), not moderate their alcohol intake, not eat well, not get chiropractic care, not fix their relatively minor physical problems before they become major ones, and so forth, then everything will be alright–and cheaper in the long run. What a frickin’ joke.

Marijuana Damages DNA

By On · Add Comment · In AIDS, cancer, DNA, lung cancer, marijuana, toxic

News Alert: Smoking marijuana can damage DNA and cause lung cancer. The solution: Eat more brownies.

Seriously folks, nobody in their right mind thinks that marijuana use is 100% risk free, do they? My regular readers know how I feel about the marijuana issue–I think it should be legalized. Marijuana as a mind-altering substance is relatively benign–that is, it causes little physical harm when compared to alcohol and tobacco.

But saying that, marijuana is still a foreign substance to the human body, and as such, it will have some negative physiological effects. It doesn’t surprise me that the link to DNA damage and lung cancer has finally been found. It has certainly been suspected for years. Duh! Think about it: smoke of any kind will be toxic to the lungs. Yeah, we can filter some and remain relatively healthy–the body is that strong (self-healing and self-regulating)–but high or long-term exposure will damage the nuclear genetic material.

Marijuana has its medicinal uses, and all joking aside, ingesting it as an additive to food is a less risky alternative. So if you are an AIDS or cancer patient, choose the brownie–it’ll save your breathing apparatus over time.

Laser Printers Release Toxic Emissions

By On · Add Comment · In cancer, cough, laser printers, temperature, toxic dust
I noticed one of my staff members coughing incessantly. “Get that hack checked out,” I’d snarl at her. She had, and nothing out-of-the-ordinary could be found. We’d try to figure it out, ourselves. Biofreeze, she thought. No way; I hardly use it. Air conditioning. Maybe, but every place in L.A. is air conditioned. Something you’re eating? Doubtful; it’s worse at the office.

“It’s me,” I said.

“Without a doubt, but you cause headaches, double vision, and extreme irritation to the point of wanting to commit homicide.” Oh…

But then I came across this story: Australian researchers have found that laser printers release a fine, toxic dust that can cause damage “on the scale of inhaled cigarette smoke“–whenever they were in use. Damage that can results from repeated exposure range from lung irritation to cancer. Apparently, it’s the rise in temperature of the internal printer components, toner and lubricating oil that causes the release of particles. The emitted particles then react with the air and ozone to produce the toxins. The printers’ temperatures, and consequent emissions, peaked at one minute of continuous printing, and then declined. They peaked again at two minutes of continuous printing.

There is variability among both printers and cartridges–I’m including a list of high-emitting laser printers below, but I’ll keep my ears open for any more news on this front. I’m sure nobody will be surprised to hear that the printer manufacturers have fiercely disputed the findings of the Queensland University of Technology research team, but facts are facts. Ink jet printers did not show any toxic emissions.

So, my advice: print small jobs that take less than one minute, let the printer cool, perhaps another couple of minutes, and then print the next small job. Larger jobs can be broken up in the same way, taken to Kinko’s, or started right before lunch when you can leave the room as the toxic particles are forming. Leave windows open if possible; or run an air purifier. And never, ever stop looking for the cause of your hacking cough.

The high-emitting laser printers:

  • HP Color LaserJet 4650dn
  • HP Color LaserJet 5550dtn
  • HP Color LaserJet 8550N
  • HP LaserJet 1320N
  • HP LaserJet 1320n
  • HP LaserJet 2420dn
  • HP LaserJet 4200dtn
  • HP LaserJet 4250n (old)
  • HP LaserJet 4250n (new)
  • HP LaserJet 5(a)
  • HP LaserJet 8000DN
  • HP LaserJet 8150N
  • Toshiba Studio 450

Technicians vs. Healers

By On · Add Comment · In cancer, doctors, empathy, healers, healing, sympathy, technicians

What makes a better doctor, one who knows about your illness with unequaled expertise, and who can ramble off all signs and symptoms as well as treatment options like he wrote the book on them, or one who listens to you intently, sympathizes with your condition, and brings hope and encouragement? Hard to say, really. It would be nice to have both, but as you probably know, that’s not always the case.

But we really are finding out how important sensitivity and warmth are to the healing process. It’s not just about physiology, symptoms and disease, but about the mental, emotional, and spiritual too. Are all doctors aware of this? Not yet.

According to a recent study, when patients commented to their doctors about their struggles with cancer–the diagnosis or treatment–or the health care system in general, doctors responded with empathy only 10% of the time. 389 doctors visits were recorded (both doctor and patient were aware of the taping) where these concerns or emotions were expressed, and doctors responded with empathy in just 39 of these instances.

You know, there are healers and then there are technicians. Technicians know all the book stuff–how to differentiate between diagnoses and what drug or treatment goes with what. But healers bring calm, warmth and empathy to their practices. They have a way of stirring-up the unseen energetic forces of healing in others. Healers come in all disciplines–medical doctors, chiropractors, acupuncturist, physical therapists–as do technicians. You know the difference. If you are looking for a healer but find yourself in the office of a technician, then say thank you and move on. You’ll find what your looking for if you don’t give up.

Cancer Tough to Cure…But There May Be Hope

By On · Add Comment · In apoptosis, cancer, gene, genetic, mind-body, mutation, networks, pathways, prevention, tumors

Cancer may be tougher to cure than once thought. Because it is the product of many gene mutations and not just one, cancer is especially hard to located and treat. That’s the latest, anyway, out of Johns Hopkins University.

According to researchers, genes in tumors work in networks, not as single genes as once believed. The scientist studied every gene in two of the hardest to treat cancers, pancreatic and glioblastoma multiforme, a type of brain cancer. They found that pancreatic cancer has an average of 63 mutated genes that code for uncontrolled cell growth, while glioblastoma multiforme averages 60 mutations. And to make matters worse they vary among people. According to one of the researchers, Dr. Bert Vogelstein, “If you have 100 patients, you have 100 different diseases.”

Sounds daunting, I know; but the good news is that they found just 12 pathways on average that caused uncontrolled growth and spread. The researchers point out that treatments should be aimed at interacting in the pathway itself, and not against a singular gene, like the current cancer drug Gleevec does.

These findings are not surprising to me and it illustrates the complexity of genetic interactions. The one gene, one illness notion is simplistic and unlikely. It happens to work that way for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)–which Gleevec was designed for–but that’s probably more the exception than the rule. The researchers point out that single gene target drugs will most likely be ineffective against most solid tumors.

I also think that finding one gene for other characteristics is unlikely too. Don’t get me wrong, geneticists think they are finding genes that act in a solitary fashion in coding for traits or processes, but I’m certain that the work done in this study is a taste of how it works as a whole–the pathways or networks are what is important.

I think that finding drugs to disrupt these pathways and cure cancer will a be very difficult task, indeed. We may not see it in our lifetime. And it really makes me think of the bigger picture. We are all developing genetic mutations and damage at all times. Our body has a way of fixing these problems. And when the damage cannot be fixed, cells have a built-in protective process called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. This evolutionary insurance plan is designed specifically to halt uncontrolled cellular growth, which is non-conducive to life. If we all have the propensity toward genetic mutation, and we all have repair mechanisms, then why does this process go haywire in some people and not others? Remember these are pathways, not single genes, so we aren’t just born one way or the other–we all have the capacity to develop cancer, every one of us.

I don’t really have an answer that would suffice here, but I do think that the future with regard to cancer will be about prevention; and much of this will come from mind-body discoveries. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me. There is a mental/emotional component that we are missing in all of this, and we’re missing it because we are so attached to materialistic explanations for everything. I think there is more, and I think it will come out sooner or later. Let’s leave it at that for now.

Exercise Reverses Brain Damage

By On · Add Comment · In brain, cancer, exercise, nerve, neuons, neurological, pediatric, physical fitness, radiation, regenerate, rehabilitation, stem cells, training
How’s this for plugging physical fitness: Research shows that exercise may reverse the damage done to the brain of cancer patients from radiation, particularly in kids. That’s the latest out of the Institute for Neuroscience and Physiology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. How’s that? Exercise for the brain!?!? Duh, yeah! According to the research, exercise causes new stem cells to develop, which in turn can form new neurons, the brain’s cellular workhorses.

Here’s how they found out. The researchers irradiated the brains of baby mice; the dose was comparable to doses given to cancer patients with brain tumors. They then let half the mice exercise on running wheels, while the other half simply hung out in cages. After a few months, all the mice were killed and their brains examined. What they found was that the mice which were allowed to run “had more precursor cells and more new neurons, and these neurons took up their places better in the brains than mice simply kept in cages.” The exercising mice had a 275% increase in the number of newborn cells that developed into neurons.

The conclusions of the study are that pediatric cancer patients can benefit from exercise. Ah, yes. And the brain damage seen to their undeveloped brains can be reversed. Yes, yes! And that physical rehabilitation should be an integral part of post-cancer radiation treatment. Bravo!

But let’s take it a step further. Physical rehabilitation should be on every post-treatment protocol, whether chemical, radiation, or surgical. Think about it: The human body was meant to move. Physical activity has neurological implications. The nervous system controls and coordinates every function of the body. It’s the master control of the system (have you read my book yet?), and it’s the structure we know the least about. But we’re learning–and studies like this extend our knowledge into this vast and fascinating territory. What might be more important is what we learn about development and regeneration in general. Not only reptiles have that ability.

Remember: The human body is an amazing self-healing, self-regulating organism. It can repair itself, and it can regenerate. We have the power to heal ourselves if we do the right things. A few of those things are regular movement, physical challenge and balance training–all of which help our bodies create new nerve pathways that allow us to adapt to our environment. So if you are not moving your body regularly, better get started–your life depends on it.

Vitamin C: Anti Cancer Nutrient

By On · Add Comment · In anti-cancerous, cancer, hydrogen peroxide, Linus Pauling, nutrient, nutritional, tumors, vitamin C

Great news coming out of the National Institute of Health: Researchers there have discovered that high doses on vitamin C decreased cancerous tumors in mice by 50%. The vitamin showed anti-cancerous effects on 75% of the cancer cell lines tested. Wow! And I remember a time when nutritional remedies were thought to be severely limited, at least in medical circles–and now this!

Vitamin C, or ascorbate, is an essential nutrient that acts as a cofactor in enzymatic reactions, an antioxidant, and is a major player involved in collagen formation. The anti-cancerous properties of vitamin C appear to be from the formation of hydrogen peroxide which surrounds the tumors in their extracellular matrix. The hydrogen peroxide is damaging to the cancer cells but leaves normal cells alone.

Researchers report that the high doses of vitamin C had to be administered by injection because taking mega-doses orally are actually regulated by the gut, and is therefore harder to reach the high concentrations needed to fight cancer. Saying this, however, high doses (up to 10 grams per day) taken orally can be quite beneficial prophylactically for people without cancer. This, at least, was Linus Pauling’s belief, and I happen to agree.

So if you are suffering from cancer, print the material I’ve linked to on this post and give it to your treating doctor. See if he or she will start administering high doses of vitamin C immediately. And if you aren’t a cancer patient, you can start taking high doses of vitamin C for you general health. Since it’s water soluble, it can’t hurt you (maybe a little diarrhea in the beginning, so increase incrementally). Many experts believe that increasing your vitamin C to optimal levels is the secret to preventing many of today’s chronic degenerative disorders. Now you know.

Check out this great vitamin C website, Cforyourself.

Natural Cancer Prevention

By On · Add Comment · In broccoli, cancer, cruciferous vegetables, genetic, isothiocyanate, prostate, sulforaphane
They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away, but a few daily servings of broccoli can ward off cancer. So says a new study out of Great Britain. Not only does the study show broccoli’s anti-cancerous effects, but it shows just how the cruciferous vegetable does it.

According to researchers, isothiocyanate–a chemical found in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables like brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, and watercress–sparks a cascade of genetic effects which ultimately provide the body protection against cancer. Broccoli, however, is particularly powerful since it also contains the compound called sulforaphane, which may give it an extra cancer-fighting kick.

The study looked specifically at men with precancerous lesions of the prostrate, and found that by eating four extra servings of broccoli each week, genetic changes occurred such that certain cancer-fighting genes were turned on while other genes, those which tend to fuel tumors, were turned off. Brilliant! According to Richard Mithen, biologist at Britain’s Institute of Food Research, and one of the study’s authors, “When people get cancer some genes are switched off and some are switched on. What broccoli seems to be doing is switching on genes which prevent cancer developing and switching off other ones that help it spread.”

So there you have it: Reason to start pounding this stuff. Prostate cancer is the second-leading cancer killer of men following lung cancer. Each year some 680,000 men worldwide are diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 220,000 will die from it. So fellas, eat your broccoli by the bushel full. And women, you eat it too, since scientists believe that the cancer-protective effects of broccoli extend to other tissues besides the prostate. Remember, a large percentage of illnesses plaguing society are preventable. Now you know.

Check out this cool broccoli-blog.

Healthy Habits Not Just For Nuts Anymore

By On · Add Comment · In cancer, exercise, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healthy lifestyle habits, Journal of Clinical Oncology, self-healing

I finish the first chapter of my book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, with the following line: Although this book is not intended as a guide for curing any particular disease, people suffering from ill health can still benefit from the practices contained within.

A recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology discloses that the more healthy lifestyle habits cancer patients adopt, the better their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In 2006, the American Cancer Society recommended that cancer patients get at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-strenuous exercise, or an hour of strenuous physical activity every week; eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily; and quit smoking. According to the study’s results, many cancer patients neglect to follow these recommendations–only 5 percent were meeting all three requirements, while 12.5 percent were meeting none. Those people following one or more of the recommendations not only did better in HRQoL, but had lower mortality and recurrence rates. Very nice!

I find this study particularly interesting because I’m naturally curious about the people who have the least compliance–what makes them neglect adopting healthy lifestyle habits. Of the 9,105 cancer survivors surveyed, only 15-19% were eating at least five servings of fruit and vegetables daily, while only 30-47% were getting the recommended amount of exercise. Not great, especially in light of how crucial both activities are for all people.

I think that if I’d just had what I’d imagine is a pretty frightening “get me in touch with my own mortality” moment, I would probably become Euell Gibbons. But that’s just me.

Maybe cancer survivors who don’t adopt healthy lifestyle habits think it’s too late for them. Or maybe they think health–and ultimately life–is not within their reach; not in their destiny. I can’t imagine it’s carelessness or laziness or self-destructive behavior. Small percentage, maybe; but not in those numbers. I really think it’s a disbelief in one’s own powerful ability to heal. This study, however, gives great evidence of our self-healing, self-regulating capabilities.

So here I say to everybody–cancer survivors and all–you can reach your full potential of health by practicing the six key habits outlined in my book. Research proves everyday how powerful the human body is, and since everybody and everything in your life is connected to your physical being, then you may as well do the things that keep you functioning optimally. Beating cancer is like being given a second chance. Take advantage of it. Give your body what it needs and it’ll repay you multiplied.

The Downfall of Science

By On · Add Comment · In Big Tobacco, cancer, economics, JAMA, lung scans, National Cancer Institute (NCI), research, science, smokers, tobacco

Well, I never thought I’d say this, but, science is becoming a sham. Yup, you heard me right: the “study of truth” is becoming an oxymoron. Hard to swallow since it’s the world in which I’ve been trained, as well as the world that I love.

Sad but true. Science, like most things that are marketable, is becoming controlled by economics. And whenever money is involved, big money that is, corruption inevitably follows. I’ve already reported in an earlier post of the practice of selective publishing by the antidepressant pharmaceutical industry, but check out the latest scandal: A recent report has disclosed hidden financing from the tobacco industry in a study that showed lung scans to help save smokers from cancer. Yikes! According to the report, this finding, “has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science.”

Although researchers insist that the funding from the parent company of a big tobacco firm had “no control or influence over the research”, most experts agree that public trust is compromised when hidden research money has industry ties. No kidding. It may be true that the tobacco company had no influence or control over the results, but when a group is at least partially responsible for researchers paychecks, it might be just a little tempting to make results look favorable, both for extending the study (means longer pay period) and for future funding (security). Further, money paid to researchers by tobacco companies often lead to their testimonies against screening in class action lawsuits which favor the tobacco companies. According to Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and “any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable.”

The original study, published in the medical journal JAMA, was also partially financed by the National Cancer Institute. Both groups spoke out against the financial relationship between the study and the tobacco company. According to NCI chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, the society would not have contributed to the study if it knew “Big Tobacco” was co-funding the work. And Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, stated that she would not have published the paper had she known of the relationship.

Well, as I stated at the beginning, science backed by big business has a vested interest to veer from the truth. Whether or not CT lung scans actually save lives is not the point here. It’s that if we are to learn the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in matters of the universe, it’s much better to secure financing from institutions that have no vested interest in the outcomes. Unfortunately, that’s just not the world we live in.

Sleep and Cancer

By On · Add Comment · In anti-oxidant, cancer, circadian rhythms, melatonin, pineal gland, shift work, sleep

Have I mentioned how important sleep is? Just another reason to catch enough shuteye–researchers have found that shift work (work that can disrupt normal sleep patterns like firefighting or long rounds in emergency rooms) can actually cause cancer by repeatedly disturbing the body’s internal clock. The internal clock is responsible for regulating circadian rhythms, a complex mechanism involved in many body functions including hormonal and neurological balance.

The study was carried out by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the French-based cancer agency of the World Health Organization, which looked at several studies showing the links between shift work and cancer. In one study, it was found that women who work night shifts may have a 60 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer. In another study, tests in mice showed that circadian clock genes are disrupted in tumor cells. And in yet other studies, evidence shows that firefighters, who breathe in smoke, chemicals and dust and who also work shifts, have a higher risk of cancer and heart disease.

Scientists believe that the culprit in the cancer susceptibility may be the body’s response to light. The brain’s pineal gland produces melatonin, a hormone necessary for regulating the internal clock, and which also acts as a cancer fighting anti-oxidant. When repeatedly subjected to light and sleep deprivation, the body’s normal melatonin production is disrupted, which can lower the protective and balancing effects of melatonin.

Careers that are primarily shift work include firefighting, health-care, industrial, transportation, communications, and hospitality. I’d also like to point out that regular late-night partying with stimulants and narcotics would also fall under the category of extreme shift work. The agency stresses, though, that these findings are preliminary, and that it would take another five years to understand the situation fully and what can be done about it.

Shift work is going to be with us forever. Some jobs just require round-the-clock availability, period. However, it’s important to get the sleep while you can. If you’re a shift worker, then you’ve got to try to get your seven to eight hours consecutively and consistently. These finding may help employers manage shift schedules more effectively, helping their employees, and their businesses, in the long run. Until then, try to get used to a regular sleep routine within the constraints of your work schedule–it’ll save you years of exhaustion, or worse.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.