Thursday, June 7, 2007

Black Raspberries May Thwart Colon Cancer

There is a potentially powerful biological weapon for health -- a mix of compounds suspected of thwarting colon cancer -- hiding deep inside the juicy sweetness of a black raspberry.

And if it can be harnessed, it could play a major role in preventing the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States.

In a recent study, rats that were injected with a cancer-causing agent and then fed a berry-rich diet had 80 percent fewer malignant tumors compared to rats that had no berries in their diet.

For years, scientists have touted the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables.

They're only now starting to gain an understanding of what compounds give certain foods a healthful edge.

Black raspberries are rich in several substances thought to have cancer-preventing properties, said Gary Stoner, a study co-author and a professor of public health at Ohio State University. Stoner is also a researcher at the university's Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Such substances are called antioxidants. The researchers also compared the antioxidant activity of black raspberries to that of blueberries and strawberries, two fruits with suspected chemopreventive effects.

Black raspberries prevailed in the comparison by as much as 40 percent.

"We were surprised by how much difference there was between the antioxidant activity of the raspberries vs. the other fruits," Stoner said.

The research appears in the current issue of the journal Nutrition and Cancer.

Rats were injected with azoxymethane (AOM), a carcinogen that causes colon tumors.

After two weeks of exposure to AOM, the animals were placed into four groups and fed diets mixed with 0, 2.5, 5 or 10 percent freeze-dried black raspberries.

Two additional groups of rats, which did not receive AOM, served as controls. The two latter groups were fed a diet containing 0 or 5 percent freeze-dried black raspberries, respectively.

Nine weeks after the final injection of AOM, researchers looked for the development of tiny lesions in the colon called aberrant crypt foci (ACF).

Although ACF rarely occur in humans, the lesions can develop into polyps in rats. In humans, polyps are benign masses of tissue which, if left untreated, could develop into malignant tumors.

Every rat injected with the carcinogen AOM developed the ACF lesions. While most of these lesions go away on their own, Stoner said, some may eventually develop into malignant tumors.

In rats fed diets supplemented with black raspberries, the number of malignant tumors seemed to correspond with the amount of freeze-dried berries fed to a rat -- the more berries a rat ate, the fewer tumors it had.

At the end of the study, the prevalence of adenocarcinomas -- or malignant tumors -- was reduced by 80 percent in the rats that ate the most black raspberries in their diets.

"That's a much higher reduction than I thought we'd see," Stoner said.

Adenocarcinomas were reduced by 28 and 35 percent, respectively, in the groups eating diets of 2.5 and 5 percent black raspberries.

This reduction is based on the average number of tumors found in rats that had been injected with AOM and fed a berry-free diet.

The tumors were smaller in the rats that ate freeze-dried berries -- diets of 2.5, 5 and 10 percent yielded reductions in tumor size of 28, 42 and 75 percent, respectively, when compared to the animals not fed the berries.

The researchers also measured urinary levels of 8-OHdG -- a compound that is related to the degree of oxidative damage in the body. The process of oxidation produces free radicals, which can damage cells as well as genetic material. Free radicals are thought to play a role in the onset of cancer.

Berries reduced the level of 8-OHdG in the urine by 73, 81 and 83 percent in the 2.5, 5 and 10 percent berry diets, respectively.

"This suggests that berries bind up a good portion of free radicals, preventing them from causing damage in the body," Stoner said.

In addition to measuring the levels of some of these chemopreventive compounds, Stoner and his colleagues compared the antioxidant activity of the black raspberries to that of strawberries and blueberries.

Previous studies suggested that these two fruits had antioxidant activity superior to that of other fruits commonly eaten in the United States, but researchers had not studied black raspberries.

Using a device that measured each fruit's ability to absorb free radicals, the researchers found that black raspberries topped the charts: these berries exhibited 11 percent more antioxidant activity than did blueberries and 40 percent more than strawberries.

One reason for the raspberries' seemingly stellar health advantage may be their richness in compounds such as anthocyanins, which give berries their almost-black pigment; phenols, such as ellagic, coumaric and ferulic acid; calcium; and vitamins such as A, C, E and folic acid.

All of these substances are known chemopreventive agents, Stoner said.

Fresh black raspberries are undoubtedly beneficial, but they are also expensive and can be hard to come by. Freeze-dried berries have as much nutritional content as fresh berries do, but the freeze-dried version isn't readily available to consumers, Stoner said. He tells people to hold off on getting discouraged, though.

"The results of this study would translate in humans to eating two large bowls -- or four cups -- of fresh black raspberries each day," he said.

"That may seem a bit extreme. People need to know that these animals are given whopping doses of a carcinogen. It's conceivable that a much lower dose would be effective in humans."

It's also good to keep in mind that the National Cancer Institute continues to recommend four to six helpings of fruits and vegetables each day. "We're just suggesting that people make one of those helpings berries," Stoner said.

The research was supported in part by a grant from the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

Stoner conducted the research with Ashok Gupta, Ronald Nines, Laura Kresty, Wendy Frankel, Suzy Habib, Krista La Perle and professor of food science and nutrition Steven Schwartz, all with Ohio State; Gabriel Harris of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in Morgantown, W. Va.; and Daniel Gallaher of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

May 2, 2002

Reprinted from:
http://www.altmedicine.com/Article.asp?ID=3341

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Thirty Things You Can Do To Avoid Cancer

1. Make sure you have a pure source of foodstuffs. Obtain fresh, organic produce regularly by joining a vegetable box scheme

2. Eliminate plastic storage containers from your kitchen and do not buy or store food in plastic or clingfilm

3. Try not to cook the life out of food. Steam vegetables such as brocolli or cauliflower to maintain their integrity and nutritional value

4. Eat wide from many sources for a balanced diet. Include nuts, herbs, lentils and fresh, organic, locally grown produce

5. Find different ways to give yourself a regular, yearly detox

6. Think about and act on your health in a preventative way. Try out some alternative therapies to help you switch on a health sense

7. Test your bodies PH rating. Cancer loves sugar and readily available proteins in an acid environment. Quit taking sugar as much as you can and eat foods that balance your PH

8. Throw your microwave away. Recent tests show 97% of flavonoids lost in brocolli by microwaving

9. Do a toxin stocktake on your household products and food sources. Throw away any harmful chemicals you are persuaded to put into your environment or yourself by advertisers

10. Make sure that your air and water supplies are as pure as possible. Exercise in a healthy, non-toxic environment

11. Find out more about your immune system and how to support it in thought, word and deed

12. Avoid known stressors such as alcohol, tobacco, coffee, extreme conditions and so on, as much as possible

13. Check your home and work for sources of harmful radiation

14. Avoid using deodorants and sun screens containing parabens

15. Avoid factory farmed products such as milk, eggs, fish or cheese. Animals are often fed large amounts of antibiotics as a precaution and live in very stressful conditions

16. Avoid genetically modified food (GMO)

17. Eat slowly and chew food properly. Enjoy eating as a special moment when you ingest new energy for your being

18. Avoid vexatious media intrusions. Just because they thrive on a diet of drama, conflict and spectacle, it doesn't mean you have to

19. Adapt a lifestyle that is in tune with what is around you. Find time to enjoy life and do things that you love

20. Get out into the countryside regularly

21. Carry out your own 'genetic counselling'. Write down the ailments suffered by your ancestors and look for genetic weaknesses in your physiology. Act to compensate for perceived weaknesses

22. Think about your health at physical, intellectual, emotional and energetic levels

23. Look out for ways to experience 'healing moments' in your everyday existance

24. Inform yourself about your medical condition and explore alternatives if you are prescribed medical drugs. All medical drugs have side effects

25. Practice creative visualisation and other methods of positive thinking

26. Find constructive outlets for negative energy

27. Do things that give your life personal meaning for you

28. Get a hair analysis done to see if you are missing any minerals in your diet. The human body needs: 90 nutrients, 60 minerals, 16 vitamins, 12 essential amino acids, 3 essential fatty acids - check them out !

29. Read the labels on food. Avoid trans fats (Hydrogenated Vegetable oils) in biscuits and cakes. Make your own - its fun !

30. Do things that make you laugh

About The Author

Simon Mitchell

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Simon_Mitchell

Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks from rBGH Milk

American Dairy Farmers are using Monsanto hormone, rBGH

  • rBGH-milk causes cancer
  • No rBGH labeling required on milk containers

Monsanto's Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks of Colon Cancer, Prostate Cancer and Breast Cancer, Warns Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health.

As reported in a May 9 article in The Lancet, women with a relatively small increase in blood levels of the naturally occurring growth hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor I (IGF-1) are up to seven times more likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer than women with lower levels. Based on those results, the report concluded that the risks of elevated IGF-1 blood levels are among the leading known risk factors for breast cancer, and are exceeded only by a strong family history or unusual mammographic abnormalities. Apart from breast cancer, an accompanying editorial warned that elevated IGF-1 levels are also associated with greater than any known risk factors for other major cancers, particularly colon and prostate.

This latest evidence is not unexpected. Higher rates of breast and colon cancer have been reported in patients with gigantism (acromegaly) who have high IGF-1 blood levels. Other studies have also shown that administration of IGF-1 to elderly female primates causes marked breast enlargement and proliferation of breast tissue, that IGF-1 is a potent stimulator of human breast cells in tissue culture, that it blocks the programmed self-destruction of breast cancer cells, and enhances their growth and invasiveness.
These various reports, however, appear surprisingly unaware of the fact that the entire U.S. population is now exposed to high levels of IGF-1 in dairy products. In February 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of unlabelled milk from cows injected with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, rBGH, to increase milk production. As detailed in a January 1996 report in the prestigious International Journal of Health Services, rBGH milk differs from natural milk chemically, nutritionally, pharmacologically and immunologically, besides being contaminated with pus and antibiotics resulting from mastitis induced by the biotech hormone. More critically, rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of abnormally potent IGF-1, up 10 times the levels in natural milk and over 10 times more potent. IGF-1 resists pasteurization, digestion by stomach enzymes, and is well absorbed across the intestinal wall. Still unpublished
1987 Monsanto tests, disclosed by FDA in summary form in 1990, revealed that statistically significant growth stimulating effects were induced in organs of adult rats by feeding IGF-1 at low dose levels for only two weeks. Drinking rBGH milk would thus be expected to significantly increase IGF-1 blood levels and consequently to increase risks of developing breast cancer and promoting its invasiveness.

Faced with escalating rates of breast, colon, prostate and other avoidable cancers, FDA should withdraw its approval of rBGH milk, whose sale benefits only Monsanto while posing major public health risks for the entire U.S. population. A Congressional
investigation of FDA's abdication of responsibility is well overdue.

SOURCE: Press Release: July 8, 1998 by the Cancer Prevention Coalition

CONTACT: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, 312-996-2297; epstein@uic.edu

Monday, June 4, 2007

Smoker Should Pay More for Health Insurance

(NewsTarget.com) A new survey published this week indicates that most Americans believe smokers and the obese should pay more for health insurance. However, those surveyed were unsure how to assist the millions of citizens who currently have no health insurance.

More than 1,500 people were surveyed for the study, and of that number, 80 percent believe that the health care system in the U.S. needs to be fixed. It is estimated that approximately 46 million Americans currently have no health insurance. The study also indicated that 60 percent of those surveyed indicated favoring higher insurance premiums for smokers while 30 percent favored higher premiums for the obese.

The report stated "When it comes to personal responsibility, consumers increasingly support making people pay more for unhealthy behavior." The survey was released a week after Democrats -- who are generally in favor of more government intervention into the lives of uninsured citizens -- won control of both houses of the U.S. Congress.

The health insurance industry unexpectedly began to support a plan for universal health insurance for American citizens earlier this week. With nearly 16 percent of Americans now uninsured, the rate has been rising for years as prices for prescription drugs and hospital care have escalated.

Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, said that about 20 percent of large employers already give insurance discounts to non-smoking workers, and that this stance is rapidly growing in popularity -- with Darling indicating that it will continue to grow faster.

Darling added that, in regards to obesity, "I think it will be a while before we get to the point where people begin tying a financial discount to something like BMI (body mass index)." When asked about the government's role in a type of universal health insurance, Darling added that "Our view is that it has to be shared responsibility; the government is going to have to pay" with the other half of the responsibility going to taxpayers, according to Darling.

Pesticides Increase Breast Cancer Risk

Pesticides Increase Breast Cancer Risk

Exposure to certain pesticides, known as organochlorines, may increase the risk of breast cancer in women. Organochlorines, which are found in agricultural and industrial products, have a weak estrogen-like effect, and play a role in the development of breast cancer. After taking into account other known risk factors for breast cancer, the researchers write that the risk of breast cancer was twice as high in women with the highest (blood) concentrations of dieldrin (an organochlorine) as that in women with the lowest concentrations.

The Lancet 1998;352;1816-1820.

Reprinted from:
thelancet.com

Exercise reduces cancer risk

Exercise reduces cancer risk

Susan Aldridge, PhD

A new analysis shows that physical activity may reduce the risk of several types of cancer.
The leading charity Cancer Research UK announces that University of Bristol researchers have uncovered a link between exercise and reduced cancer risk. In 37 out of 51 studied reviewed, regular exercise can cut the risk of colon (but not rectal) cancer by 40 to 50 per cent. There is a 30 per cent reduction in breast cancer risk with physical exercise - the benefits being greater for post-menopausal women. Lung cancer risk may be reduced by 40 per cent and there are smaller risk reductions for both endometrial and prostate cancer.

The researchers say that moderate exercise for 30 minutes on three or more days a week could, on this evidence, substantially reduce the risk of cancer. There is also evidence that exercise can help people recover from cancer - reducing fatigue and improving mood. The team will shortly start a new study to find out more about the impact of exercise on people who already have cancer.


Source
Cancer Research UK 11th October 2002

Reprinted from:
healthandage.com

Sunday, June 3, 2007

Breast Cancer News

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Black women with advanced breast cancer are faring no better now than they were two decades ago despite improved survival by white women - and the gap appears to be widening, U.S. researchers said Sunday.

Dr. Sharon Giordano of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center studied breast cancer survival in women between 1988 and 2003.

She found that, in general, women with advanced breast cancer were living longer.

"But when we looked separately by race, we found the improvement seemed be to limited to white patients and the survival for black patients had remained flat over time," Giordano said in an interview.

"What is really concerning to me is that the difference is getting bigger."

She and colleagues identified 15,438 patients from a National Cancer Institute database. They had a median age of 62 and were diagnosed with advanced breast cancer between 1988 and 2003.

They divided the groups into three time periods.

From 1988 to 1993, breast cancer survival was fairly close between whites and blacks, with a median survival of 20 months for white women versus 17 months in blacks.

Between 1994 and 1998, the median survival was 22 months for white women and 16 months for black women.

From 1999 to 2003, the median survival rate for white women jumped to 27 months, versus a stagnant 17 months for black women.

"The study didn't look at any of the factors that could be causing it," said Giordano, who presented her study at the scientific meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES?

Some researchers have suggested that biological differences may make breast cancer more deadly for black women.

A study last fall of 2,000 women by Dr. Wendy Woodward, also of the University of Texas, compared the records of black, Hispanic and white breast-cancer patients.

They found the black women overall had more aggressive tumors and were more likely to die than the Hispanic and white women.

But Giordano was skeptical of the link to biological differences.

"I don't really think it is any inherent difference in biology of people by race. It is more likely related to socioeconomic factors," Giordano said.

"I think you could also hypothesize it could be related to access to care - potentially differences in access to new treatment," she added.

Giordano said the next step is to determine the reasons for this increasing disparity. "Once you know the reasons, you can intervene to correct the problem."

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, cautioned that biological differences should not be used to dismiss other contributing factors.

"My personal view is the majority of this (disparity) is related to access ... to the ability to get adequate care in a timely fashion, and perhaps some of it is related to biology," he said.

"We in this country need to do a better job of making sure that all women have better access to mammography and better access to care."

Breast cancer kills 500,000 people a year globally, according to the World Health Organization, and 1.2 million men and women are diagnosed with it annually.

It is the second most common cause of cancer death in U.S. women after lung cancer, and the No. 1 killer of women aged 45 to 55. It kills 40,000 men and women a year in the United States.

Smoking and Lung Cancer

An estimated 146,000 Americans died of lung cancer in 1992, and 90 percent of these deaths were caused by cigarette smoking. Smoking is responsible for about 30 percent of all cancer deaths annually in the United States more than 155,000 each year. If smoking-related cancers could be eliminated from our society, we would see a significant decline in the annual cancer death rate instead of small but steady increases.

Since 1964, the year of the Surgeon General's first report on the health risks of cigarette smoking, strong evidence of the association between smoking and cancer has accumulated. Countless studies have proved that smoking causes lung cancer, and we now know that it substantially increases a person's risk of developing cancer of the larynx, pharynx, oral cavity, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas. Additional studies suggest a strong association between smoking and cancer of the cervix.

The risk of developing lung and other smoking-associated cancers is related to total lifetime exposure to cigarette smoke, as measured by the number of cigarettes smoked each day, the age at which smoking began, and the number of years a person has smoked. Likewise, the risk of developing other smoking- related diseases, including chronic lung diseases and coronary heart disease, also increases with the amount of smoking a person has done.

The health risks associated with cigarette smoke are not limited to smokers: exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) significantly increases a nonsmoker's risk of developing lung cancer. (ETS is the smoke that nonsmokers are exposed to when they share air space with someone who is smoking.) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a risk assessment report in December 1992, in which ETS was classified as a Group A (known human) carcinogen a category reserved for only the most dangerous cancer-causing agents. The EPA report estimates that ETS is responsible for several thousand lung cancers in nonsmokers each year and, perhaps equally important, links ETS exposure with severe respiratory problems in infants and young children.

The good news is that a smoker's risk of developing lung and other cancers can be reduced by quitting. The risk begins to decrease immediately after quitting and continues to decline gradually each year. Another benefit is that the risk of developing other cancers and chronic diseases associated with smoking is also reduced. The risk of coronary heart disease, for example, declines substantially within only a few short years following cessation. Women who quit smoking during the first trimester (3 months) of pregnancy substantially reduce the risk of such adverse pregnancy outcomes as low birth weight or stillbirth. (meds dot com)

General Information About Malignant Mesothelioma Cancer

Malignant mesothelioma is a disease in which malignant (cancer) cells form in the lining of the chest or abdomen.

Malignant mesothelioma is a disease in which malignant,cancer )cells are found in the pleura (the thin layer of tissue that lines the chest cavity and covers the lungs) or the peritoneum (the thin layer of tissue that lines the abdomen and covers most of the organs in the abdomen). This summary is about malignant mesothelioma of the pleura.


Anatomy of the respiratory system, showing the trachea and both lungs and their lobes and airways. Lymph nodes and the diaphragm are also shown. Oxygen is inhaled into the lungs and passes through the thin membranes of the alveoli and into the bloodstream (see inset).

Being exposed to asbestos can affect the risk of developing malignant mesothelioma.

Many people with malignant mesothelioma have worked or lived in places where inhaled or swallowed asbestos. After being exposed to asbestos, it usually takes a long time for malignant mesothelioma to occur. Other risk factors for malignant mesothelioma include the following:

  • Living with a person who works near asbestos.
  • Being exposed to a certain virus.

Possible signs of malignant mesothelioma include shortness of breath and pain under the rib cage.

Sometimes the cancer causes fluid to collect around the lung or in the abdomen. These symptoms may be caused by the fluid or malignant mesothelioma. Other conditions may cause the same symptoms. A doctor should be consulted if any of the following problems occur:

  • Trouble breathing.
  • Pain under the rib cage.
  • Pain or swelling in the abdomen.
  • Lumps in the abdomen.
  • Weight loss for no known reason.

Tests that examine the inside of the chest and abdomen are used to detect (find) and diagnose malignant mesothelioma.

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer. The following tests and procedures may be used:

  • Physical exam and history: An exam of the body to check general signs of health, including checking for signs of disease, such as lumps or anything else that seems unusual. A history of the patient’s health habits, exposure to asbestos, past illnesses and treatments will also be taken.
  • Chest x-ray: An x-ray of the organs and bones inside the chest. An x-ray is a type of energy beam that can go through the body and onto film, making a picture of areas inside the body.


    X-ray of the chest. X-rays are used to take pictures of organs and bones of the chest. X-rays pass through the patient onto film.

  • Complete blood count (CBC): A procedure in which a sample of blood is drawn and checked for the following:
    • The number of red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets.
    • The amount of hemoglobin (the protein that carries oxygen) in the red blood cells.
    • The portion of the blood sample made up of red blood cells.
  • Sedimentation rate: A procedure in which a sample of blood is drawn and checked for the rate at which the red blood cells settle to the bottom of the test tube.
  • Biopsy: The removal of cells or tissues from the pleura or peritoneum so they can be viewed under a microscope by a pathologist to check for signs of cancer. Procedures used to collect the cells or tissues include the following:
    • Fine-needle aspiration biopsy: The removal of part of a lump, suspicious tissue, or fluid, using a thin needle. This procedure is also called a needle biopsy.
    • Thoracoscopy: An incision (cut) is made between two ribs and a thoracoscope (a thin, lighted tube) is inserted into the chest.
    • Peritoneoscopy: An incision (cut) is made in the abdominal wall and a peritoneoscope (a thin, lighted tube) is inserted into the abdomen.
    • Laparotomy: An incision (cut) is made in the wall of the abdomen to check the inside of the abdomen for signs of disease.
    • Thoracotomy: An incision (cut) is made between two ribs to check inside the chest for signs of disease.
  • Bronchoscopy: A procedure to look inside the trachea and large airways in the lung for abnormal areas. A bronchoscope (a thin, lighted tube) is inserted through the nose or mouth into the trachea and lungs. Tissue samples may be taken for biopsy.

    Enlarge
    Bronchoscopy. A bronchoscope is inserted through the mouth, trachea, and major bronchi into the lung, to look for abnormal areas. A bronchoscope is a thin, tube-like instrument with a light and a lens for viewing. It may also have a cutting tool. Tissue samples may be taken to be checked under a microscope for signs of disease.

  • Cytologic exam: An exam of cells under a microscope (by a pathologist) to check for anything abnormal. For mesothelioma, fluid is taken from around the lungs or from the abdomen. A pathologist checks the cells in the fluid.

Certain factors affect prognosis (chance of recovery) and treatment options.

The prognosis (chance of recovery) and treatment options depend on the following:

  • The stage of the cancer ( The extent of a cancer in the body. Staging is usually based on the size of the tumor, whether lymph nodes contain cancer, and whether the cancer has spread from the original site to other parts of the body.).
  • The size of the tumor [ tumor (TOO-mer) : An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Tumors may be benign (not cancerous), or malignant (cancerous). Also called neoplasm.].
  • Whether the tumor can be removed completely by surgery.
  • The amount of fluid in the chest or abdomen.
  • The patient's age and general health, including lung and heart health.
  • The type of mesothelioma cancer cells and how they look under a microscope.
  • Whether the cancer has just been diagnosed or has recurred (come back).
Thanks to Cancer Gov