Cancer Drugs Cause Cancer?
This is an excerpt from Jenny Thompson at Health Science Institute
“We were shocked. It was probably two years ago now when my dad's oncologist laid out his options.”
Basically, he wanted my father to try a new chemo. He'd have to be in the hospital for 10 weeks. Then he'd have to come back two or three days a week for a few hours each time for ANOTHER ten weeks after that.
That was bad enough but here's the kicker: The doctor said (and I remember this part like it happened this morning) "There's a 2 percent chance it will cure you and a 20 percent chance it will kill you."
That sounds crazy, right? Who would do that? (Certainly not my dad!) But it turns out that your situation doesn't have to be as dire as my father's was to be just as crazy.
In a Q&A that appears on CNN's website, a viewer asks if one of the chemo drugs given to her husband in 1990 might have caused a secondary cancer. She notes that her husband's hematologist told them that "chemo drugs long ago were mutagenic...and cytotoxic"
Wait until you hear how Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society responded! He said, "It is ironic but true that many cancer chemotherapies are known to cause cancers."
This is the head medical guy at the American Cancer Society basically shrugging his shoulders and, for all intents and purposes, telling us "Yeah, the thing we want you to take for your life-threatening disease...well, it could make you worse. Actually, a lot of them do."
Ironic? I think it might be more accurate to replace "ironic" with "insanely tragic."
It's astounding--MANY chemo drugs cause cancers. And notice that Dr. Brawley didn't add the hematologist's phrase "long ago." We're talking right now, this minute, in hospitals and clinics all over the world, cancer patients are receiving treatments that might very well prompt further cancers!!!
Dr. Brawley goes on to add: "It is something that the physician must consider when recommending treatment."
First, HUGE understatement again, Dr. Brawley. (I think he might be board-certified in those!) And second, the physician shouldn't just consider it, he should be very upfront about it.
My father's oncologist sounded crazy when he recommended the treatment, but at least we knew exactly what we were facing.
Doctors usually rush the decision to use chemo--a decision that's often assumed to be the only option of scared patients and their families. But nothing could be further from the truth.
It's incredibly shocking and daunting, but if you're ever in this situation, please ask questions, including "What other cancers is this form of chemo known to cause?" And consider your options...because you do have them. For example, there is growing evidence that high doses of intravenous vitamin C fight many forms of cancer -- better and safer than chemo.
And if you ever hear this question from a cancer patient: Could this vitamin C give me cancer? For the record, the answer is no.
Prostate News
P - S - A
Men, when you hear your doctor say those three letters, it's time to go on high alert. Because when PSA rises, some doctors get crazy ideas. And it's up to you to put on the brakes.
To be fair, doctors are only going by the book. Unfortunately, the book is junk.
Here's the problem...
Let's say your digital rectal exam (DRE) indicates no enlargement of your prostate. In addition, your level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is low. (As you're probably aware, high PSA is a cancer red flag--but more on that in a moment).
So--you've got a low PSA, a good DRE--you're good to go, right?
Wrong.
If your PSA starts rising, two organizations (the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Urological Association) recommend a biopsy, even when your highest PSA level is still considered low. Now your doctor may figure, "Who am I to argue with the hallowed scholars of NCCN and AUA?" And you might figure the same.
But a new study from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center warns, "Don't buy it!"
In more than 5,500 men with low PSA, researchers measured PSA every year for seven years. PSA velocity (the rate of change from one year to the next) was compared to frequency of biopsies.
Result: Upward velocity was an ineffective marker for cancer, resulting in far too many unnecessary biopsies. Velocity was also completely ineffective in revealing aggressive forms of prostate cancer.
The researchers concluded that PSA velocity should not be used as a basis for biopsy in otherwise healthy men.
Finally, a sane recommendation. After all, cancer is just one of the factors that can cause PSA to rise rapidly. If you have sex just prior to your blood test, you'll raise your PSA. Infection of the prostate or bladder can also spike PSA. Even riding a bicycle before a blood test can boost your level!
In addition, different labs test PSA in different ways, producing different results.
And let's be honest: Prostate biopsies are grueling, with potential side effects such as bleeding and infection. So you DO NOT want to submit to one casually. And we can now count PSA velocity as a casual basis for a biopsy, especially if other factors indicate that your prostate is healthy.
But you're still not quite out of the woods.
The Sloan-Kettering study only addressed biopsies. The S-K team didn't mention that when PSA rises, some doctors skip the biopsy and as a precaution prescribe a class of prostate cancer drug known as GnRH agonists. Brand names include Lupron, Zoladex, and Trelstar.
But late last year, the FDA warned that GnRH agonist drugs are linked with increased risk of diabetes and heart disease.
In other words, this "precaution" could be a killer.
So gentlemen, don't assume your doctor has heard about the FDA warning or has read the S-K study. When he starts talking about your PSA, NEVER agree to any treatment or biopsy without discussing these concerns and warnings with him first.
More cancer causing drugs for women
It's been right under our noses for years.
And now we find out that researchers have known for decades about a potential link between antidepressant use and increased risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
It's staggering to think of what this means.
Could it really be possible that one of the most popular class of drugs of all time might be driving a major health disaster that spans several generations of women?
The answer, in one word: yes.
Recently, a Harvard team reviewed more than 60 trials, covering 35 years of research, going all the way back to 1965. Approximately one-third of the studies suggested a higher risk of ovarian and breast cancers for antidepressant drug users.
That news alone would be bad enough. But this study has multiple layers to peel back--one disturbing layer after another.
For instance: Among the different types of antidepressants, researchers found that the cancer link appears to be slightly stronger with women who use the very popular selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Celexa.
That reminded me of a drug called Sarafem that was warned about several years ago. Sarafem is prescribed for relief of premenstrual irritability. But it's nothing more than repackaged Prozac! It's scary to imagine how many women out there are using this drug, completely unaware of what they're actually taking and the potential risks involved.
The Harvard researchers also found a surprising association with length of antidepressant use. In the study's conclusions, the authors theorize that short-term use and/or low dose antidepressants may increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers.
Also, women who have either of these cancers in early stages may worsen the severity of their disease.
Could it get any worse? Oh yes. And it does...
Prior evidence has shown us that when research has ties to the drug industry, results tend to skew toward positive outcomes, putting drug use in a favorable light. So the Harvard team reevaluated the data to compare studies conducted without industry participation and 15 studies funded by industry.
None of the industry studies found any cancer links. But nearly HALF of the non-industry studies revealed links to these two devastating cancers.
If we were talking about some wonderfully effective life-saving drug, raising cancer risk might be acceptable--borderline, but acceptable. But just the opposite is true here. Antidepressants have been shown to work about as well as St. John's wort in relieving mild to moderate depression.
In addition, several other supplements have been proven to help keep depression in check. Vitamin D, high levels of B vitamins (which include folate, a proven depression-fighter), magnesium, and omega-3 fatty acids have all been shown to help reduce depressive symptoms.
Regular exercise, deep breathing, and a little direct sunlight exposure (for optimal D) are also very helpful for some.
Please share this with the women in your life to let them know they can protect themselves from this unnecessary cancer risk.
HOW FULL FAT HELPS DIABETES
Reprinted From Daily Health News 5-3-11
After all these years reading and writing about health, I can’t help but notice that certain basic nutritional truths keep reasserting themselves. For instance, it seems blatantly obvious to me that we could save lots of money researching the root causes of chronic illness by saying simply this -- always eat in moderation, and choose foods that are as close to their natural states as possible.
As the latest example, let me tell you about some research I have just reviewed that says people who consume whole-fat dairy products -- as opposed to their processed, lower-fat versions -- have a 60% lower incidence of diabetes! This flies in the face of what experts have been advising for decades -- that everyone but babies and toddlers should choose milk, cheese, yogurt and other dairy products with the lowest possible fat content, because the saturated fat that’s prominent in dairy products is bad for your health.
FAT IS BEAUTIFUL?
Now, in a study from Harvard published in Annals of Internal Medicine, a team of researchers has found that people with the highest circulating levels of a type of fatty acid that is found only in whole-fat dairy are one-third as likely to get diabetes as those with the lowest circulating levels. Higher levels of the fatty acid -- called trans-palmitoleic acid -- were also associated with lower body mass index (BMI)... smaller waist circumference... lower triglycerides (potentially harmful blood fats)... higher levels of HDL "good" cholesterol... less insulin resistance.. and lower levels of C-reactive protein, a marker for general inflammation.
How the study was done: At the study’s start, researchers began with baseline measurements of glucose, insulin, inflammatory markers, circulating fatty acids and blood lipids (such as triglycerides and cholesterol) from stored 1992 blood samples of 3,736 participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded Cardiovascular Health Study. Those data were compared with the same participants’ dietary records and recorded health outcomes (including the incidence of diabetes) over the following 10 years. During this period, 304 new cases of diabetes were recorded. When the participants were grouped according to their circulating levels of trans-palmitoleic acid, the researchers discovered that those with higher levels had the lowest rates of diabetes.
HOW MUCH DAIRY?
I spoke with the study’s lead researcher, Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health, who told me that other studies have suggested a similar phenomenon with dairy consumption, but that his is the first to have used objective chemical markers in the blood to determine the relationship between this specific fatty acid and the onset of diabetes. The participants with the highest levels averaged about two servings of whole-fat dairy foods a day.
This is not a license to indulge yourself in a daily serving of strawberry shortcake with extra whipped cream or a giant ice cream from Cold Stone Creamery... but you might want to consider switching from skim milk to whole milk with your morning cereal and selecting full-fat yogurt over low-fat or nonfat. The difference in calories isn’t great -- and you may be getting some real metabolic and cardiovascular benefits.
I warned you about Statin Drugs for Cholesterol
Sometimes you can tell when the FDA maybe doesn't have a whole lot of enthusiasm about getting out a new, very serious warning -- especially when it concerns the biggest selling class of prescription drugs on the market.
Last spring, the FDA first warned that the highest dose of Zocor (a statin drug) may increase the risk of muscle damage.
Now, more than a FULL YEAR later, the agency has finally gotten around to telling Merck (the maker of Zocor) to change the drug's label to show that the 80 mg/day dose raises risk of muscle damage which could be severe enough to completely shut down kidney function.
Here's another word for zero kidney function: death.
Now I know the FDA says it's very busy and underfunded. But statins are the most popular drug class in the U.S. Millions of people take them every day. The fact that it took more than a YEAR to get around to such an important warning is borderline criminal! But even worse is the fact that the FDA hasn't required this warning for ALL statins.
As the Lipitor website has told us for at least three years: "Lipitor can cause serious muscle problems that can lead to kidney problems, including kidney failure."
Of course, muscle damage and kidney failure are just two of the very serious health risks that get bumped up when taking statin drugs. Other known risks include liver damage, type 2 diabetes, cataracts, and memory loss.
Imagine if a dietary supplement was linked to such a wide range of serious health problems. Angry mobs with pitchforks and torches would be storming FDA headquarters!
But we haven't heard much at all about those side effects in any of the recent media coverage of the FDA's "new" warning about Zocor.
And there's one additional risk linked to Zocor that emerged a couple of years ago, but now you rarely see it mentioned anywhere. And it's a truly shocking risk that puts all those others in the backseat.
Three years ago they published the results of a trial that compared Zocor to Vytorin in more than 700 subjects with high cholesterol. In theory, Vytorin should be a cholesterol-lowering Big Kahuna, because it combines Zocor and Zetia, a drug that blocks absorption of dietary cholesterol.
Results of the trial showed that both drugs reduced LDL cholesterol, but there was no "significant difference in changes in intima–media thickness" (that is, in the thickness of artery walls) in the Zocor group compared to the Vytorin group.
That's odd, right? When LDL goes down, it's supposed to REDUCE thickness of artery walls by reducing plaque buildup. But that quote above, from the conclusion of the study, makes it sound like the reduction was not significant in either group.
But digging deeper into the study you'll find this note: "There was a slight increase in the mean intima–media thickness over time in both groups."
Yes, you read that right: an INCREASE in artery wall thickness.
At this point, the FDA took an unusual action. They stepped in to review the study. And about one year later (apparently everything takes a year with these guys) they gave us the lowdown: LDL dropped by more than 50 percent in the Vytorin group and nearly 40 percent in the Zocor group. BUT carotid artery thickness increased in both groups.
And the report adds: "The thickness of the carotid arteries...is a marker of risk for cardiovascular disease."
So without coming straight out and saying it, they're suggesting that the use of BOTH drugs in the trial increased cardiovascular disease risk even though LDL cholesterol was significantly lowered.
It's astounding! But not as astounding as the FDA's conclusion to the report: "Based on current available data, patients should not stop taking Vytorin or other cholesterol lowering medications."
ONLY the FDA could come to such an insane conclusion!
The report notes that results of a previous study led the Zocor/Vytorin researchers to anticipate two things: 1) that LDL would be lowered, and 2) that Zocor would increase artery wall thickness.
So this was the SECOND major study to link Zocor use with narrowed arteries.
At this point it's pretty pointless to ask the obvious, but it has to be asked: Should you risk muscle damage, kidney failure, liver dysfunction, and memory loss to take a drug that may lower your LDL but may also narrow your arteries?
Imagine how the FDA would answer that -- then do the exact opposite.
My Comment:
It has been shown repeatedly now that lowering your cholesterol is not the answer to preventing heart disease. The America Medical Association (AMA) has finally come out and repealed their age old mantra that cholesterol was the cause of heart disease even though common sense would tell you that if some populations eat very high levels of fatty foods and still have some of the lowest rates of heart disease, then maybe we should be looking somewhere else for the real cause. The real cause is a lack of quality nutrition.
After 20 years of terrible advice, the AMA now states that cholesterol does Not Cause Heart Disease! The AME was dead wrong about Butter, Eggs, Low and Non-Fat, Carbohydrates, High Blood Pressure and now Cholesterol! And once again they have to eat crow.
But doctors are very slow to change, so they continue to unnecessarily dispense cholesterol drugs like candy regardless of the side effects. Cholesterol is vital to your health and brain function. The older you get, the more you need it. Cutting it needlessly to artificially low levels is a fast track to illness. Hopefully, you follow the information I provide in this newsletter and make better choices for your own health. Drugs should be a last resort. They are very damaging to your body even in small amounts.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
The information on this blog is provided for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical care, and medical advice and services are not being offered. If you have, or suspect you have, a health problem you should consult your physician (preferably a Naturopath).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment