Breast Cancer and POPs

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are a class of synthetic, lipophilic, bioaccumulative compounds, many of which were first introduced during the post WWII industrial boom. Most notable among these older POPs are dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in the 1970s in the U.S. due to concerns over widespread human exposures and potential adverse health effects in wildlife and humans.

Because of their persistent and bioaccumulative nature, however, exposure to these compounds continues decades later with detectable levels prevalent in human tissue today. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a newer class of POPs, introduced into the marketplace in the late 1970s as flame retardant additives to consumer and building products.  Owing to their similar molecular structure and toxicological properties to PCBs, in combination with the ubiquity of exposure, it appears PBDEs are poised to become the PCBs of the 21st century. In response to recent regulatory action that banned the use of two of the three primary commercial PBDE formulations in the U.S., replacement brominated flame retardants (BFRs) have recently emerged and are in widespread use. 

Interest in the role of POPs in breast cancer etiology stems largely from the well-documented endocrine disrupting properties of these compounds.

The public is under the general impression that the real increase in cancer rates is due to smoking.

Is it because people are living longer that they’re getting more cancers? The answer to that is no, because when we talk about cancer incidence rates, we adjust them to reflect the increasing longevity of the population.

Can genetics be the possible reason for this major increase in cancer? Not at all. There’s no chance whatsoever that the genetics of human populations has changed in the last 40-50 years. It takes tens of thousands of years for genetic effects in the general population to change. So one can exclude genetics and sharply limit the role of smoking.

What about fatty diet? There’s really little evidence that fat is a risk factor for cancer. For instance, if you look at Mediterranean countries, they have extremely high fat consumption, particularly olive oil, which can be as high as 40 percent of the diet. But the rates of cancers, particularly reproductive cancers, are low. However, you find strong relationships between the consumption of animal and dairy fats and some cancers. But that’s a reflection of the fact that these are highly contaminated with a wide range of industrial, chemical, and petrochemical carcinogens.

There has been a massive escalation in the incidence of cancer that cannot be explained away on the basis of smoking, longevity, genetics, or a fatty diet.

What are the rationales of National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society on the causes and prevention of cancer?

First of all, they try to explain away cancer by what’s called, “blame the victim.” If you get cancer, it’s your fault. You smoke too much. It’s a fatty diet.” Or they claim it’s because people are spending too much time in the sun. They parallel this emphasis on blame the victim by ignoring, to all intents and purposes, a vast body of scientific information on avoidable causes or risk factors of cancer.

The cancer establishment is fixated on what’s called, “damage control”-the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer, as opposed to prevention.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the leading American charity watchdog stated, “The American Cancer Society is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.”

Let’s understand something about screening. Screening is the key strategy of medicine, government, big business and all the breast cancer (prostate cancer) organizations.

Does screening save lives?

Screening for breast cancer with mammography is widely encouraged by governmental programs in both the European Union (EU) and the United States under the assumption that the screening programs save lives. In the case of breast cancer, an analysis of randomized trials with some 247?000 women aged 40–74 years showed that for every 1000 women who participated in screening, 3.9 diagnosed with breast cancer died, compared with 5.0 among those who did not participate. The follow-up time ranged between 5.8 and 20.2 years. Thus, the absolute risk reduction was on the order of one in 1000. The authors of a recent review of six trials involving half a million women estimated the absolute risk reduction to be approximately one in 2000. Note that this benefit relates to fewer breast cancer deaths; no reduction in mortality from all cancers or other causes was found. Whether the potential of screening to reduce breast cancer mortality outweighs the harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment is still under discussion.

What are the conflicts of interest between NCI, the American Cancer Society, and industry ?

The conflicts of interest extend particularly to the mammography industry-the machine and film industry. We have excellent data showing that pre-menopausal mammography is not only ineffective, but is also dangerous for a variety of reasons, including the high doses of radiation. Two films of a breast in a pre-menopausal woman gives that woman about 500 times the dose of a chest X-ray. If a pre-menopausal woman gets a mammography every year over a ten-year period, the dosages of radiation can well amount to about ten rads (a rad is a “radiation absorbed dose,”) a measure of radiation exposure.

Radiation from routine pre-menopausal mammography reaches reasonably close to the kind of dosage that women got in Hiroshima and Nagasaki outside of the major epicenter where the atom bomb was exploded. Nevertheless, a radiologist will tell women, when asked if there’s any problem with the radiation, “Well my dear,” and they’ll call them by their first name, “not at all. It’s just the same as spending a few days in Denver or taking a transatlantic flight.” This is deception and manipulation.

If we can’t explain this major epidemic of cancer on the basis of smoking, increased longevity, genetics, or a fatty diet, then what are the reasons for it?

They fall into three general categories. The first relates to consumer products. By consumer products, I mean things you can buy in a store which include food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products. In all of these areas, the consumer, once given the information on which of these pose cancer risks, could boycott them and shop for safer products.

Typically, any organization considered “charitable” is viewed almost as a sacred cow largely immune from careful scrutiny by researchers, the media, and the public. With their well-funded public relations funding, the larger charities have been able to create an atmosphere in which questioning the activities, expenditures, and objectives of a charity is interpreted as an attack on charitable activities themselves.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Disease and POPs

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are responsible for a wide range of metabolic diseases that clinicians in Establishment Medicine know nothing about. Even if they understood the problems POPs cause, they have no methods by which they could eliminate the threat.

I want to concentrate on some of the big diseases:

  • Obesity
  • Diabetes
  • Cardiovascular Disease
  • Cancer including Breast Cancer

The chemicals contributing to obesity are known as obesogens. Here’s something I just dug up at

Americans aren’t the only ones getting fatter—our animals are also growing overweight, reports it isn’t just pets and lab animals piling on the pounds (though they are; the likelihood of chimps living with or near humans being obese increased tenfold between 1985 and 2005): one study found feral rats in Baltimore are also getting plumper. This is more than just an interesting piece of trivia, Pro Publica reports:

The following idea will shock people who believe we found the solution to the obesity epidemic. It raises the question of whether the usual culprits of “too much food” and “not enough exercise” are really the only things causing the obesity crisis.

And the evidence is overwhelming that it is more, much more.

Breast Cancer

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are a class of synthetic, lipophilic, bioaccumulative compounds, many of which were first introduced during the post WWII industrial boom. Most notable among these older POPs are dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in the 1970s in the U.S. due to concerns over widespread human exposures and potential adverse health effects in wildlife and humans.

Because of their persistent and bioaccumulative nature, however, exposure to these compounds continues decades later with detectable levels prevalent in human tissue today. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a newer class of POPs, introduced into the marketplace in the late 1970s as flame retardant additives to consumer and building products.   Owing to their similar molecular structure and toxicological properties to PCBs, in combination with the ubiquity of exposure, it appears PBDEs are poised to become the PCBs of the 21st century. In response to recent regulatory action that banned the use of two of the three primary commercial PBDE formulations in the U.S., replacement brominated flame retardants (BFRs) have recently emerged and are in widespread use. 

Interest in the role of POPs in breast cancer etiology stems largely from the well-documented endocrine disrupting properties of these compounds.




PCBs and Human Health

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are considered “persistent organic pollutants;” fat-soluble compounds that bioaccumulate in individuals and biomagnify in the food chain. PCBs were the first industrial compounds to experience a world-wide ban on production because of their potent toxicity. PCB bioaccumulation can lead to reduced infection fighting ability, increased rates of autoimmunity, cognitive and behavioral problems, and hypothyroidism.


Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a category of industrial chemicals historically used as coolants or heat transfer agents in electrical transformers. They have also been used in microscope immersion oils, carbonless copy paper, cutting oils, and as an inert ingredient in pesticides.


Production of PCBs in the United States ceased in 1979 because of findings that these compounds were accumulating in the environment and were being associated with severe health problems.


Some consumer products made before 1977, including old fluorescent lighting fixtures, electrical devices, or appliances containing PCB capacitors, may still contain PCBs and can be a source of exogenous exposure. Widespread use, large-scale environmental contamination events (spills), and slow biodegradation, all combine to make PCBs a ubiquitous environmental contaminant.


34 of the 38 PCBs were found in virtually all persons tested.


Potential Adverse Effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Humans


Immune System


Testing indicates that PCBs are potent inducers of cell death for monocytes and thymocytes.


Apoptosis of thymocytes appears to be secondary to mitochondrial damage by PCBs. Increased apoptosis of monocytes and thymocytes results in lower numbers of white blood cells (WBCs) to initiate an immunological defense. In order to determine if dietary intake of PCBs leads to immunological problems, mice were fed diets with either PCB-contaminated whale blubber or beef fat that was not contaminated with PCBs.


Because PCBs can cause more serious health problems in the case of in uteroexposure, it is highly recommended women be tested for these compounds before trying to conceive. If levels are high, exposure reduction and toxin elimination can commence prior to conception.


PCBs – How to Protect Your Family.wmv

PCBs were domestically manufactured from 1929 until their ban in 1979 and were used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications. PCBs have been dem…

Inflammation as a Leading Cause of Chronic Disease

Chronic inflammation is now thought to play a key pathogenetic role in the associations of obesity with insulin resistance and diabetes.

Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2002 revealed strong associations of serum concentrations of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) with type 2 diabetes.  It is well-known that exposure to high concentrations of environmental pollutants can induce inflammation.

In this study, we observed that serum concentrations of OC pesticides were positively associated with C-Reactive Protein among the general population of the U.S. with background exposure to POPs.

There is no question that the exposure to certain environmental pollutants can induce inflammation. At present, the most studied area in both experimental and human studies subsumes the association between exposure to air pollution and system inflammation.

As an entirely nonspecific response to most forms of tissue damage, various factors may be involved in the chronic elevation of CRP. Our study suggested that, without consideration of exposure to POPs, CRP may not be associated with insulin resistance.


Iatrogenesis, or an iatrogenic artifact “originating from a physician” is an inadvertent adverse effect or complication resulting from medical treatment or advice.

In the United States an estimated 225,000 deaths per year have iatrogenic causes, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths.

Some iatrogenic artifacts are clearly defined and easily recognized, such as a complication following a surgical procedure. Some less obvious ones can require significant investigation to identify, such as complex drug interactions Furthermore, some conditions have been described for which it is unknown, unproven, or even controversial whether they are iatrogenic or not; this has been encountered in particular with regard to various psychological and chronic-pain conditions. Research in these areas continues.

Causes of iatrogenesis include negative effects of drugs, chance, medical error, or negligence.

The term iatrogenic can also be used without negative connotation to describe the results of treatment; for example, scars created by surgery are said to be iatrogenic even though they do not represent improper care and may not be problematic. Lymphedema, secondary to any breast cancer surgery, is a perfect example of a condition directly caused solely by the surgery itself.

The term iatrogenesis means brought forth by a healer; as such, in its earlier forms, it could refer to good or bad effects.

With the development of scientific medicine in the 20th century, it could be expected that iatrogenic illness or death would be more easily avoided. This has not been the case.

Iatrogenesis drives health care costs Part 2

Iatrogenesis means induction of disease by medical treatment. Two processes accounts for it: 1. Medicine treats harmless aberrations, and 2. It ignores the t…

Exercise for Chronic Fatigue and the ‘I’m So Tired’ Feeling

Although it’s believed that exercise is good to help overcome chronic fatigue, and that is true, but there is a big problem with that. Both diet and exercise are issues in the solution to this problem but the newly discovered issue of persistent organic pollutants is actually the main problem.

Chronic fatigue arises from multiple sources. Physical inactivity can lead to fatigue. The problem, of course, is that when you begin to exercise, this may exhaust you even more because your exercise tolerance levels are so low.

The statement, “Get more exercise,” is too non-specific for people suffering from chronic fatigue. A step-by-step exercise program is what you need.

A combination program of resistance exercise and aerobic exercise is the best way to go. All exercise programs have three major parts:

* duration: how long

* frequency: how often

* intensity: how hard or how much effort do you expend

Resistance and Effort Evaluation

Since monitoring is so important to success, we must have a simple, yet effective method for rating effort. This allows you to determine the proper resistance to use when beginning the training program, and also to know at what point you need to increase the resistance for continued progress.

True for both aerobic exercise and resistance training, this provides a framework for an exercise prescription.

In the early 1960’s, Dr. Gunnar Borg from the University of Stockholm in Sweden, developed the idea of a scale for rating the trainee’s sense of how hard an exercise was to perform. He called this the “perceived exertion scale.”

He designed the scale so that scientists, practitioners of the health sciences, and individuals could simply, yet accurately, and without the aid of sophisticated equipment check how hard an exercise was so that the proper level of effort for each person could be determined.

Perceived exertion is a description (or rating) of your effort during exercise. It’s a measure of how hard you think the exercise is for you. Your brain can tell how hard you are breathing or how hard you are straining to lift a weight and it processes those feelings of effort that you have during your exercise.

When you say that an exercise is hard, then you are verbally stating your perception of the effort you made.

The good thing about this is that we can use a scale to measure exactly how hard you think the exercise is for you. This scale is then used to pick the correct resistance or weight to use to get good results.

Perceived Exertion Rating Scale

The scale has numbers from 0 – 10, with 0 being the “no effort” level and 10 representing the “very, very hard” level. Most of the numbers have word labels that are

easy to understand. The layout of the scale is as follows.

0              No effort at all

1              Very, very light (just noticeable)

2              Very light

3              Light

4              Moderate

5              Somewhat hard

6              Hard (heavy)


8              Very hard


10           Very, very hard (almost maximal)

When using the scale, you can rate effort by decimals, that is, 3.5 or 5.5. As you can see, 10 is listed as

almost maximal. Therefore, you can rate a 10.5 or 11 if the effort you just made was the hardest you’ve ever done.

Using the Rating Scale to Monitor Your Programs

How do you use the scale? Let’s use aerobic exercise as an example. The American College of Sports Medicine recommends that aerobic training be done at 65-90% of the maximum heart rate.

This heart rate has been shown to be highly related to the 3 (moderate) to 6 (hard) level on the scale.

So, scale ratings of 3-6 can estimate training ranges for proper exercise based on scientific guidelines.

Dr. R. J. Shephard and others have shown that the scale is effective for both men and women.

Dr. Borg’s research showed that the scale is also capable of accurately rating anaerobic (resistance)

exercise. In an article published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise in 1983, Dr. Bruce Noble confirmed this.

Verbal Instructions in Use of Scale

Dr. William Morgan has provided verbal instructions for understanding the scale based on aerobic exercise: When you do aerobic exercise, try to estimate how hard you feel the work is; that is, rate the degree of perceived exertion you feel.

Think of perceived exertion as the total amount of exertion and physical fatigue, combining all sensations and feelings of physical stress, effort, and fatigue. Try to concentrate on your total, inner feeling of exertion.

Estimate as honestly and objectively as possible. Sometimes an exercise will be hard for the whole body.

You’ll feel worn out all over; this is usually the case with an activity such as running.

With resistance training, an individual muscle may get very tired before the whole body does. This also happens in biking, especially to people who are not yet in shape with the thigh muscles becoming worn out before the whole body gets tired.

When this happens, rate how hard that exercise is for that muscle group. For example, with resistance exercises for the arm muscles, the arms usually get tired or can’t do any more work well before your breathing rate or heart rate increases to higher levels. Your whole body doesn’t feel tired but your arms may hurt a lot. Just rate how hard the exercise is for your arms and don’t worry about your whole body.

Using the scale is the best way to deal with your chronic fatigue. This way you can grade how you’re doing so you don’t overdo while you recondition.

The coming of the health coach revolution

In New York, suddenly, holistic health coaches are everywhere. And their unique approach to jump-starting the health of their clients—and the general population—is changing the ways people approach getting, and staying, healthy.

Health coaches are generally educated at the (IIN) in New York, which was founded 20 years ago by Joshua Rosenthal. Often, personal health issues and revelations draw them to IIN. They used to be sick, tired, and unhappy and want to help others kickstart their own transformations. And they’re not buying traditional approaches to nutrition.

While health coaches are primarily trained to counsel clients one-on-one, the diverse curriculum leads to a variety of approaches and business models. Some mix spirituality into sessions with clients. One student wants to add coaching to her acupuncture practice.

The emphasis in coaching is to focus on nutrition. One institute teaches more that 100 different dietary approaches. Everything today is about diet and exercise.

The health coach fills this new role that makes up for the doctor who just gives you Valium without having a conversation with you, the nutritionist who calorie counts, and the therapist who wants to dig into childhood and never talk about next steps. That stuff is so antiquated. We’re moving into a place where we’re taking responsibility for our health and happiness.

Various homeopathic remedies
Various homeopathic remedies (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One reason for the rapid growth is people’s disdain for modern drug-based medicine. Medicine cures nothing. This was known well over 100 years ago and it was said that if all the drugs were thrown into the sea that it would be that much better for man and all the worse for the fish.

The Biomedacademy offers a unique opportunity for health coaches to expand their offerings. We teach people about energy medicine. We don’t promote all aspects of energy medicine and focus primarily on the use of energetic remedies such as homeopathic remedies manufactured by our sponsoring companies.

We teach health coaches in our one-of-a-kind online program and then bolster their learning and skill set through webinars conducted by Drs. Marrongelle and Ellis. Members of the Academy will have unlimited access to our combined 60 years of practice.

The program is unique and goes way beyond the limited focus on nutrition. We now know that Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are damaging our health and we offer solutions to this problem.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Incidence of Obesity and Diabetes has Dramatically Increased Worldwide

From 1980 to 2008, the global prevalence of obesity has doubled in both men and women whereas the number of people with diabetes increased from 153 million in 1980 to 347 million in 2008. A recent report realized in the European Union (EU) highlights that overweight and obesity affect more than 50% of the adult population whereas diabetes is now affecting over 30 million people. In the United States (US), the prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents has almost tripled since 1980, and 12% of children aged 2 through 5 years were obese in 2009-2010. In addition to enhancing the risk of premature death, diabetes and obesity are major causes of multiple complications, including hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, blindness, limb amputation, and sleep apnea, that generate enormous economic costs for both health care and loss of productivity to society. Total annual economic cost of diabetes in the US reached $132 billion in 2002, representing around 11% of the US health care expenditure, and increased to $174 billion in 2007. In Europe, obesity-related healthcare was estimated to reach up to 10.4 billion Euros.

Although they are the focus of intense investigations, the origins of metabolic diseases have remained poorly understood.

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including dioxins, furans, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and organochlorine pesticides, are chemicals mainly created by industrial activities, either intentionally or as by-products. Because of their ability to resist environmental degradation, these substances are omnipresent in food products, and found all around the world, even in areas where they have never been used like Antarctica . Thus, virtually all humans are daily exposed to POPs. In the general population, exposure to POPs comes primarily from the consumption of animal fat like fatty fish, meat and milk products; the highest POP concentrations being commonly found in fatty fish.

Environmental toxins; POPs

The most important cause of type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome is environmental. Something bad was introduced during industrialization and is increasing in the environment. We know that it is noninfectious; the usual suspects are “POPs.” POPs are defined as “chemical substances that persist in the environment, bio-accumulate through the food web, and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment” by the Stockholm Convention. It identified 12 POPs initially and subsequently added 9 more.

Scientific Evidence for the Homeopathic Treatment of Environmental Poisons

There is a significant body of research to show the benefits of homeopathic medicines in treating environmental exposures of toxic substances.

Back in 1994, a highly respected group of researchers reviewed 105 animal studies that evaluated the ability of homeopathic medicines to discharge heavy metals from the bodies of mice. This review found that the best results were in the studies that were deemed to be scientifically rigorous. When evaluating only these higher quality studies, the researchers found a significant reduced death rate from exposure to toxic minerals (arsenic, mercury, cadmium, bismuth) when homeopathic doses of these substances were given to the animals (as compared with those given a placebo).

Since 1994, more than a dozen new studies have confirmed these results. A group of university researchers in India have conducted a body of laboratory trials testing the effects of heavy metals on mice which were given homeopathic doses of these toxic substances after exposure.

At present, arsenic in groundwater has affected millions of people globally distributed over 20 countries. In parts of West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh alone, over 100 million people are at risk, and supply of arsenic-free water is grossly inadequate.

Attempts to remove groundwater arsenic by using orthodox medicines have mostly been unsuccessful. A potentized homeopathic remedy made from arsenic (Arsenicum album 30C) was administered in a double-blind, placebo-control study to a group of groundwater arsenic affected people, and the arsenic contents in urine and blood were periodically evaluated. The activities of various toxicity marker enzymes and compounds in the blood, namely aspartate amino transferase, alanine amino transferase, acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, lipid peroxidation and reduced glutathione, were also periodically monitored up to three months. The results are highly encouraging and suggest that the drug can alleviate arsenic poisoning in humans.

Based on this research, it is reasonable to ask if homeopathic doses of radioactive elements and other substances with apparently similar effects are useful.


The Solution to Pollution is Dilution – Part 3 of 7 – In this video we discuss the third phase of homotoxicology, the deposition phase. We tell you how you can measure the impact of pha…


Seeing the Direct Effects of Using Homeopathic Remedies to Fight Diabetes

Now that we know that POPs are a primary cause of diabetes it just makes sense to use a proven method to help the body eliminate these disease-causing toxins. This is exactly what we do in our clinical practices.