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

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

Adrenal Fatigue Syndrome: Find Out Why It Drains Your Energy

Most people have depleted energy reserves and describe their day as running on empty. Having enough energy to lead a happy and productive life is missing for most people.

Every physical action and both emotional and mental actions expend energy. When energy is used, it must be replenished. The stress of living drains our energy resources.

The adrenal gland is the final leg of the body’s stress response system. This system is the HPA axis or the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis. This system was designed to deal with stresses that we experience each day. It should turn on, then turn off.

 

The adrenal glands sit atop the kidneys.
The adrenal glands sit atop the kidneys. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Stress Response System Must Turn-On, Then Turn-Off

Unfortunately, for many people, it rarely turns off so it has no chance to recover and heal. The adrenal gland has two parts: the medulla which secretes adrenaline. This is the well-known fight-or-flight hormone. Quick acting, it prepares us to fight or flee from imminent danger.

The adrenal cortex secretes cortisol which acts more slowly and is the primary hormone involved in dealing with chronic stress, such as war. Medical studies of the chronic and extreme fatigue syndromes have implicated the HPA axis as being involved.

The idea that deficient cortisol output led to fatigue developed in the late 1800’s. There is, however, little consensus among the medical people about the level of involvement of adrenal fatigue syndrome as a causative factor in chronic fatigue.

The primary reason for the lack of a definitive answer about adrenal fatigue syndrome is due to the wide range of variations in measuring adrenal output. People with adrenal insufficiency are at risk for adrenal crisis, usually caused by a major stress, such as severe infection or surgery.

Most People Suffer From Sub-Clinical (No Diagnosis) Fatigue

Few people are diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but a large percent of the population suffers from undiagnosable chronic and extreme fatigue. Because medical work-ups cannot find any specific dysfunction, this does not make the fatigue any less weakening to the individual.

Recent studies have shown that the HPA axis is likely involved and that, in particular, there is a diminished contribution from the adrenal gland via its production of cortisol. Recent studies have shown that adrenal gland size is reduced by 50% in those diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome.

This surely suggests that adrenal fatigue syndrome due to shrinking of the adrenal gland is likely involved in all chronic and extreme fatigue individuals. Unfortunately,
these studies have not led to the development of any effective medical therapies.

In the field of alternative medicine, however, nutritional supplementation plans, such as the use of DHEA, and more complex programs involving exercise, diet, vitamin/mineral complexes, and the judicious use of specific herbal formulations suggest that adrenal fatigue syndrome can be dealt with effectively.

This, of course, occurs outside of mainstream medicine, and without its approval. This creates a difficult environment for individuals who most often rely on their doctor’s guidance and are unwilling to take health care into their own hands.

Yet, surveys show that many people are now turning to alternative medicine because their doctors offer no effective strategies for dealing with the ever-increasing epidemic of fatigue in our modern times.
The Newest Player in Adrenal and Endocrine Fatigue is Persistent Organic Pollutants
These bad news chemicals came onto the scene after WWII and studies began seriously in the early 1990s. Quickly, it was realized that these toxic substances were messing with the whole endocrine system and they were called endocrine disruptors.

 

Endocrine Disruptors (Are the Products We Use Killing Us and Our Children?)

Informative commentary on the Endocrine System and how it is being disrupted by the house hold chemicals and food that we consume on a daily bases. Death, De…

How You Can Avoid Diabetes and Its Debilitating Effects

In the mid-1980’s scientists at the Rockefeller Institute published a research paper called “The Glycation Theory of Disease.” This research effectively killed the 30-year belief that it was cholesterol and fat that were at the root of many diseases. The theory proposed that blood sugar would bind tightly and irreversibly to the body’s tissue proteins.

 

When a bond forms then that “glycated protein” binds to the one next to it and a chain reaction forms whereas the body becomes glued together,losing its elasticity. Blood vessels become clogged, inflammation products arise damaging tissues even further. In 2008, there are now more than 5,000 research papers implicating blood sugar as the cause of most degenerative diseases.

 

It appears that it never was cholesterol and fat that were the causes of disease, it was blood sugar. But the medical doctors, scientists, and people of the world have been led to believe in the dangers of cholesterol and fat. An enormous pharmaceutical industry has grown in response to these mistaken beliefs.

 

Recent research is only coming around to the idea of the dangers of glucose and the debilitating effects of the glycation process. In fact, ask people if they’ve ever heard of glycation and you’ll likely get 0 out of 100 people. That shows how entrenched the cholesterol theory is in the minds of the population.

The emerging role of endocrine disruptors in pathogenesis of insulin resistance

Endocrine disruptors or endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) represent a highly heterogeneous group of molecules found in the environment or in consumer products. Toxicology and epidemiology studies have suggested the involvement of diverse EDCs in an increasing number of metabolic disorders, including insulin resistance (IR) and IR-related co morbidities, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and polycystic ovary syndrome. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), another IR related condition, is emerging as a significant public health concern, affecting 30-45% of the general population in the Western world. To evaluate whether EDCs may also play a role in the pathogenesis of NAFLD, we reviewed the literature on well-studied EDCs, such as dioxins, bisphenol A, phthalates and other persistent organic pollutants, in relation to pathways that might contribute to the pathogenesis of fatty liver / NAFDL. This is yet another explanation for the explosion in diabetes.

Current dietary recommendations create an environment that is conducive to glycation. Recently I read the dietary recommendations that personal trainers were to provide to their clients and the “expert” advice was to consume 50-70% of one’s total daily calories as carbohydrates. That’s absurd and dangerous.

 

Today there is emphasis on the idea that there are good carbohydrates and bad carbohydrates and this is reflected in the junk science called the glycemic index. This index argues that different foods can have differing effects in the rate of rise of blood sugar and that this is somehow meaningful to glucose control.

 

Even the American Diabetes Association has refused to accept the glycemic index as an effective means of controlling blood sugar and regulating diabetes.

 

It appears, then, that blood sugar control cannot occur while following the dietary recommendations of our medical elite.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Diabetes Has Multiple Causes but Persistent Organic Pollutants is the Main One

“How Can You Get Control Over Diabetes”

The Burden of Diabetes

Population projections are that people diagnosed with diabetes could increase to about 18 million persons by 2020. The financial burden on the health care system is enormous.

What causes type 2 diabetes is the most frequently asked question and there are few satisfactory answers. This question has stumped medical and scientific researchers for many years. But, despite all that’s not known, there is general agreement that type 2 diabetes is tightly associated with obesity.

Insulin resistance, defined as the limited ability of insulin to cause blood sugar uptake into cells, is a primary problem in Type 2 diabetes. Further, the pancreas, which releases insulin, breaks down in diabetes, releasing less insulin.

Today, most people rely on the advice and guidance of their medical doctor for diabetes treatment. Blood sugar control is the main treatment option. Recommendations to control bodyweight and to exercise are top on the list of priorities. Guidelines have existed for years and have been published by the American Diabetes Association.

Dietary recommendations follow those that have been popular for decades now: key dietary advice is to reduce fat intake to less than 30% of total daily calorie intake and to reduce saturated fat. There’s an emphasis on eating more fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grain products.

A Poorly Understood Cause

Everyone knows that diabetes is associated with obesity, probably because obesity causes diabetes. However, thin people also become diabetic. A clue to why is provided by the correlation between diabetes and what are called “persistent organic pollutants” (POPs). POPs are man-made organic compounds, usually pesticides, such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans.

A 2006 study using NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2002) data found very strong associations between levels of these chemicals and diabetes. For example, a risk ratio of 30. These associations persisted even when the data was stratified in all sorts of ways. The scariest result came from people who had BMI greater than; 25. Looking only at such people, those above the 90th percentile for amount of POPs had 16 times the risk of diabetes as those below the 25th percentile. Here is something associated with thin people getting diabetes.

Does the association exist because POPs cause diabetes? You might argue that POP exposure is correlated with poverty (poor people are more exposed), poor people exercise less than rich people, and lack of exercise causes diabetes. However, Agent Orange exposure among soldiers is associated with diabetes. That is unlikely to be due to confounding with poverty or lack of exercise.

Everyone has these chemicals in their body, but almost no one knows how much. I don’t know if I’m in the 10th percentile or the 90th percentile. If I’m in the 90th percentile, what can I do about it? A good place for self-measurement and tracking.

Can you really control your diabetes by eating this type of diet? The facts are that the astounding increase in the rate of diabetes suggests that this dietary method will fail to control diabetes and a lifetime use of drugs and insulin injections is in front of you.

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. (Diabetes Metab J 2011)

Cardiovascular diseases, eye disease, circulatory disease are all associated with the diabetic state. It’s clear that medical recommendations for controlling diabetes have failed.

There’s got to be a better way!

In simple words, what’s being used now is not working. I argue that it’s precisely the recommended diet that prevents people from controlling diabetes.

And since obesity and overweight are tied tightly to diabetes, then we have to find a better way to control weight and blood sugar.

Enhanced by Zemanta