Cancer
Cancer Prevention Update
Cancer remains incredibly complex in its natural course and in its causation. Much of the medical community is dedicated, makes profound positive contributions to the treatment of cancer and leads the way in many exciting innovations.
The entire cancer prevention issue area presents us with ongoing challenges, interesting innovations in traditional treatment and an increasing number of creative integrative medicine interventions for both the primary prevention of cancer and the challenges of secondary prevention also. It is striking to view all of the cancer treatment program marketing efforts on television and it is striking to review the number of pharmaceutical products for cancer treatment. And, in a broader context, is very important to look at the huge increase in research, the huge increase in the availability of information, the incredible medical efforts that are being made to cope with this disease, while at same time we appear to have a very persistent incidence of many types of cancer. We focus primarily on disease prevention and we advocate the rerouting of more resources from treatment to prevention. The prevention of cancer is a fascinating field that is rich in ideas but, being able to transition those ideas into action is a conundrum. There clearly is resistance on the part of the traditional medical community to do this, but there is now a more focused effort called ‘implementation science’ that begins to address the behavioral inertia we see in the medical community around the issue of being willing to take innovative, non-traditional actions to deal with cancer prevention and treatment. Even in 2016 it remains far too common for cancer patients to undergo serial chemotherapy, radiation and sometimes surgical interventions over long periods of time without ever being counseled about the role that lifestyle issues may play in their ongoing battle with cancer. This must change! This is unacceptable! This is unprofessional and indefensible … it cannot be defended on rational grounds. This resistance to change is about more than money, is about the powerful intrusion of the pharmaceutical industry into the practice of medicine, is about pride wherein medical practitioners may be resistant to shifts in their understanding, and it is about the current posture of medical education. In this newsletter we seek to share some insight about select, recent, research findings. WZ
Food Issues
Cholesterol:
Dietary cholesterol is linked to increased breast cancer risk, according to a recent meta-analysis. Researchers assessed nine studies that encompassed 387,069 participants and followed dietary cholesterol intake and cancer incidence rates. Those who consumed the most cholesterol had a 29 percent increased risk for breast cancer when compared to those who consumed the least.
REF:
Li C, Yang L, Zhang D, Jiang W. ‘Systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that dietary cholesterol intake increases risk of breast cancer.’ Nutr Res. 2016;36:627-635.
Turmeric:
Only limited studies have compared the potential of turmeric with curcumin, but some suggest turmeric, the whole food, may work even better than curcumin alone. And not just against colon cancer cells. This group of researchers at the Anderson Cancer Center in Texas pitted curcumin against seven different types of human cancer cells. And also, turmeric. They found that turmeric was more potent compared to curcumin, suggesting that components other than curcumin can also contribute to anti-cancer activities.
REF:
S C Gupta, B Sung, J H Kim, S Prasad, S Li, B B Aggarwal. ‘Multi-targeting by turmeric, the golden spice: From kitchen to clinic.’ Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013 Sep;57(9):1510-28.
Caramel Coloring, Coke and Pepsi: Caramel coloring may be the most widely consumed food coloring in the world. Unfortunately, its manufacture can sometimes lead to the formation of a carcinogen called methylimidazole, which was identified as a cancer-causing chemical in 2007. 110 soft drink samples were tested off store shelves in California and around New York. The highest levels were found in a Goya brand soda, and the lowest in Coke products, about 20 times less than in Pepsi Products. Pepsi may be causing thousands of cancer cases, especially non-California Pepsi products, which appear to be causing 20 times more cancer than Coke.
REF:
T J Smith, J A Wolfson, D Jiao, M J Crupain, U Rangan, A Sapkota, S N Bleich, K E Nachman. ‘Caramel color in soft drinks and exposure to 4-methylimidazole: a quantitative risk assessment.’ PLoS One. 2015 Feb.
Is It Safe to Take Vitamins and Supplements?
The average person shouldn’t just take a multivitamin thinking that it will enhance their health. There is no proof that multivitamins have any benefit for most people, and there is scientific proof that they may cause harm. For example, vitamin A, beta-carotene, folic acid, iron, selenium, and vitamin E are all healthy when you eat them in food, but they have been shown to be dangerous when consumed in supplements. Instead of listening to the marketing claims by the supplement industry, focus on eating whole plant foods to get the essential vitamins and nutrients you need. “There is now evidence that high doses of some supplements increase cancer risk. Despite this evidence, marketing claims by the supplement industry continue to imply anticancer benefits. Insufficient government regulation of the marketing of dietary supplement products may continue to result in unsound advice to consumers. Both the scientific community and government regulators need to provide clear guidance to the public about the use of dietary supplements to lower cancer risk.
REF:
Martinez, Maria et al. ‘dietary supplements and cancer prevention: balancing potential benefits against proven harms,’ Journal of the National Cancer Institute, web, April, 2015
Breast Cancer
GMO Soy:
In response to concerns raised about the toxicity of Monsanto’s roundup pesticide, which ends up in genetically modified (GMO) foods, Monsanto’s scientists countered that these in vitro experiments used physiological irrelevant concentrations, meaning dripping roundup on cells in a petri dish at levels far above what would be realistically found in the human body. The bottomline is that there is no direct human data suggesting harm from eating GMOs. But consumption of soy is associated with lower breast cancer risk, and improved breast cancer survival. That may be because most GMO soy in the U.S. is fed to chickens, pigs, and cows as livestock feed, whereas most of the major soy food manufacturers use non-GMO soy. Or it could be because the benefits of eating any kind of soy may far outweigh the risks, but why accept any risk at all when we can choose organic soy products, which by law exclude GMOs. The biotech industry is exasperated about GMO concerns when we have many, people dropping dead from everything else they’re eating in the very unhealthy standard American diet which is high in toxins, much too low in fiber, excessively high in toxic saturated fat, much too high in sodium, much too high in animal protein.
REF:
Greger, Michael. ‘GMO Soy and Breast Cancer,’ online, July, 2016.
Seaweed and Cancer:
an interesting story here. A population study comparing women with breast cancer to women without found that consuming a single sheet of nori a day may cut a woman's odds of breast cancer in half. We think it's because seaweed favorably alters estrogen metabolism, likely due to modulating women's gut bacteria. This may be because of all the fiber in sea vegetables, or it may block the enzyme that undermines our body's attempt to flush out excess hormones, or even somehow interfere with estrogen binding to estrogen receptors. Sea vegetables have phytonutrients found nowhere else, types of fiber, and unique carotenoids, and polysaccharides, and various polyphenol defense compounds, each of which may have anti-cancer properties. Everyone should experiment until you find one you like, even if that means just sprinkling some powdered dulse on your food. But, a word of caution: avoid hijiki, which tends to have too much arsenic, and kelp, which tends to have too much iodine. In fact, too much seaweed of any type may actually increase one's risk for thyroid cancer because of the amount of iodine you'd be taking in.
REF:
1.)T. Michikawa, M, et al. ‘Seaweed consumption and the risk of thyroid cancer in women: The Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study.’ Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2012. 2.) C. M. Gomez-Gutierrez, et al. ‘Marine edible algae as disease preventers,’ Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2011.
Tamoxifen and Breast Cancer
Tamoxifen is a medication that is used to prevent breast cancer in women and treat breast cancer in women and men. There are many side effects and it may cause cancer of the uterus (womb), strokes, and blood clots in the lungs. These conditions may be serious or fatal.
Tamoxifen is a matter of growing interest for the American public and the scientific community. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) of NIH recently invested about $68 million to test the ability of this new drug to prevent breast cancer. About 16,000 women, thought to be at higher than average risk for breast cancer, are being recruited to take a couple of tamoxifen pills daily for five years. Already, more than 11,000 have signed up despite serious indications that risks may easily outweigh benefits. Tamoxifen is thought to act on breast cancer by interfering with the ability of estrogen, mostly a female hormone, to stimulate breast cancer growth. But low-fat diets, like those provided by plant-based foods, also can do much the same thing. It appears they influence these same estrogen effects on breast cancer, but do so much more safely and comprehensively, that is naturally, than does tamoxifen. In so doing, the dietary approach should cast a much wider net of beneficial effects, while simultaneously minimizing unwanted side effects. So, just why is it that traditional medicine doesn’t set aside the medication in favor of a superior natural food option? Dr. Campbell, one of our most accomplished nutritional biochemists, believes it is because the institution of science ignores the possibilities and promises of nutrition to prevent, perhaps even to reverse, disease. It is about the discovery of drugs or procedures having commercial value. It is about scientists not choosing to investigate their own faulty eating habits. Science is ignoring the possibilities and promises of nutrition …
REF:
T. Colin Campbell. ‘Tamoxifen’s Untold Story,’ Online, October, 2015
Prostate Cancer
Dairy Products:
A new study found that prostate cancer patients who ate a Western diet were 2.5 times more likely to die from the disease. In addition, those who ate three or more servings of dairy products per day had a 141 percent higher risk for death from prostate cancer and a 76 percent increased risk for overall death. The study followed 926 doctors with prostate cancer for an average of 14 years. The researchers tracked their dairy intake and grouped them into quartiles based on whether they followed a Western dietary pattern or a “Prudent” dietary pattern. The Prudent pattern had a higher amount of vegetables, fruit, legumes, fish, and whole grains; the Western pattern was heavy in dairy products, refined grains, and processed and red meats.
REF:
Yang M. et al. ‘Dairy intake after prostate cancer diagnosis in relation to disease specific and total mortality,’Int J Cancer, Online, May 2015
After a Prostate Cancer Diagnosis:
A cancer diagnosis is seen as a teachable moment where we can try to get people to eat healthier, but research suggests that male cancer patients in particular may be reluctant to introduce dietary modification. This has been attributed to dietary modifications often being viewed as mimicking “feminine” eating behaviors, such as emphasizing an increase in fruit and vegetables. Take Men’s Health magazine, for example. Included in the list of things men should never apologize for: liking McDonald’s, not offering a vegetarian alternative, and laughing at people who eat trail mix. It features articles with titles like, “Vegetables Are for Girls,” and sections like “Men and Meat”.
REF:
1) Ornish et al. ‘Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of prostate cancer.’ J Urol. Sept 2005. 2) JP Horwood et al. . ‘Men's knowledge and attitudes towards dietary prevention of a prostate cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study.’ BMC Cancer. 2014 Nov.
Pancreatic Cancer
Pancreatic cancer is among the most aggressive forms of human cancer, characterized by a very high mortality rate. It represents the fourth leading cause of cancer death in United States, killing 32,000 people annually. With a five-year survival rate of only three percent and a median survival rate of less than six months, pancreatic cancer carries one of the poorest prognoses. The diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is one of the worst things a doctor ever has to tell a patient. The only FDAapproved therapies for it, Gemcitabine and Erlotinib, produce objective responses in less than ten percent of patients, while causing severe side-effects in the majority. There is a desperate need for new options. So curcumin, one of the active ingredients in the spice turmeric, does seem to help some patients with pancreatic cancer, and most importantly, there appears to be little downside and very little toxicity. In phase II trials curcumin helped some patients with pancreatic cancer.
But, here is the main point (about primary prevention): the only surefire way to beat pancreatic cancer is to prevent it in the first place. In 2010 a study conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the largest such study in history, found that dietary fat of animal origin was associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk. Meat has been associated with significantly increased risk and the cancer-causing viruses in poultry may explain the increased risk of death from liver and pancreatic cancers. Legumes and dried fruit appear to be protective.
REF:
1)
Dhilon N, et al. ‘Phase II trial of curcumin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.’ Clin Cancer Res, Jul 2008. 2)
Yang ZY et al. ‘Gemcitabine plus erlotinib for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review with metaanalysis.’ PloS One. 2013.
Cell Phones and Cancer
Your phone sends radiofrequency, or RF, waves from its antenna to nearby cell towers, and receives RF waves to its antenna from cell towers when you make a call or text or use data. The frequency of a cell phone's RF waves falls between those emitted by FM radios and those from microwave ovens, all of which are considered "non-ionizing" forms of radiation. That means thatunlike radiation from a nuclear explosion, a CT scan, or a standard X-ray, the radiation from your phone does not carry enough energy to directly break or alter your DNA, which is one way that cancer can occur. So, here is another one of those cancer related issues that remains unsettled and will require further clarification; does radiation from cell phones cause brain cancer-or doesn't it? On the one hand there are plenty of scientists who believe that there is significant risk. In May 2015, a group of 190 independent scientists from 39 countries, who in total have written more than 2,000 papers on the topic, called on the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and national governments to develop stricter controls on cell-phone radiation. They point to growing research,as well as the classification of cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the WHO, suggesting that the low levels of radiation from cell phones could have potentially cancer-causing effects. Three studies, one from Sweden, another from France, and a third that combined data from 13 countries-suggest a connection between heavy cell-phone use and gliomas, tumors that are usually cancerous and often deadly. One of those studies also hinted at a link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas (noncancerous tumors), and two studies hinted at meningiomas, a relatively common but usually not deadly brain tumor. Taking some common-sense precautions when using your cell phone can make sense: 1) Try to keep the phone away from your head and body. That is particularly important when the cellular signal is weak-when your phone has only one bar, for example, because phones may increase their power then to compensate. 2)Text or video call when possible. 3) When speaking, use the speaker phone on your device or a hands-free headset.4) Don't stow your phone in your pants or shirt pocket. Instead, carry it in a bag or use a belt clip.
REF:
Michael Hansen,’ Can you hear me now?’ Consumer Reports magazine, November, 2015.
Cancer Research
When considering the nutrition research concerning cancer, it is important to maintain a whole body and whole environment context, and not to lapse into reductionist, narrowly focused, trivial issues that skirt the importance of establishing clarity in the relationship between what we eat and drink and this chronic disease.
It is likely that we are unable to win the ‘war on cancer’ because we have not sufficiently challenged the ‘mutation theory of cancer.’ This theory contends that cancer begins with an environmental chemical carcinogen or some type of radiation that causes a genetic mutation that converts a normal cell to a cancer prone cell. Although the body normally repairs most of these mutations, a few become fixed during cell division into the genes of a new generation of cells. The new cancer prone cells then grow into a cluster of next generation cells through a series of additional mutations, ultimately giving rise to a mass of cells that become diagnosed as cancer We don’t expect diseased cells to revert to normality because mutations, once established, are not reversible. The mutation theory of cancer has long been the Holy Grail of most cancer research, so much so that hypotheses that rely on promoting cancer by non-mutation mechanisms (like nutrition) are often ignored, especially by professionals with little or no knowledge of the science of nutrition.
REF:
1)
T. Colin Campbell. ‘Whole: rethinking the science of nutrition.’ BenBella Books 2013 . 2)
Campbell, T. C. & Campbell, T. M., II. ‘The China Study, Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health.’ (BenBella Books, Inc., 2005).
Willliam Zahler
July, 2016
