Cancer

Acid reflux disease: Real and treatable

2009-04-10T17:02:48Z

We've all probably had acid reflux, otherwise known as "heartburn," from time to time, perhaps after eating too much or eating certain types of food. However, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a serious, chronic disease for some individuals, and overeating is not the only cause.

According to the National Digestive Diseases Information Clearing House of the NIH, the causes of GERD remain unclear. Research shows that in individuals with GERD, the lower esophageal sphincter relaxes while the rest of the esophagus is working. In addition, anatomical abnormalities such as a hiatal hernia may also contribute and such hernias can occur at any age.

Other factors that may contribute are obesity, pregnancy, smoking and certain foods.

Chronic GERD that goes without treatment can cause serious complications such as damage, bleeding or ulcers on the lining of the esophagus or narrowing of the esophagus. Some people can develop Barrett's esophagus, in which the cells in the esophageal lining change and can eventually turn into esophageal cancer, which is usually fatal.

You do not need to have classic "heartburn" symptoms to have GERD; other symptoms include a dry cough, asthma symptoms or trouble swallowing. If you have been using antacids for more than two weeks, it's time to see a doctor.

Acid reflux is real and treatable. If you or someone you love experiences chronic heartburn, make sure you see your physician or a gastroenterologist for treatment.

Source: theCancerBlog

FDA Documents Reveal HPV "Not Associated with Cervical Cancer"

2007-12-20T17:48:09Z

(NewsTarget) For the last several years, HPV vaccines have been marketed to the public and mandated in compulsory injections for young girls in several states based on the idea that they prevent cervical cancer. Now, NewsTarget has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources (see below) which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

NewsTarget has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory "vaccinate everyone" policies.

Furthermore, this story reveals evidence that the vaccine currently being administered for HPV -- Gardasil -- may increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by an alarming 44.6 percent in some women. The vaccine, it turns out, may be far more dangerous to the health of women than doing nothing at all.]]> If true, this information reveals details of an enormous public health fraud being perpetrated on the American people, involving FDA officials, Big Pharma promoters, and even the governors of states like Texas. The health and safety of tens of millions of young girls is at stake here, and what this NewsTarget investigative report reveals is that HPV vaccinations may not only be medically useless; they may also be harmful to the health of the young girls receiving them.

This report reveals startling facts about the HPV vaccine that most people will find shocking:

• How it may actually increase the risk of precancerous lesions by 44.6 percent.

• The FDA has, for four years, known that HPV was not the cause of cervical cancer.

• Why mandatory HPV vaccination policies may cause great harm to young girls.

• Why HPV infections are self-limiting and pose no real danger in healthy women

• Little-known FDA documents that reveal astounding facts about Gardasil

• How Big Pharma promoted its Gardasil vaccine using disease mongering and fear mongering

This story begins at a company called HiFi DNA Tech, LLC (http://www.hifidna.com) a company involved in the manufacture of portable HPV testing devices based on DNA sequencing analysis. HiFi DNA Tech has been pushing to get the FDA to classify its HPV detection technology as a "Class II" virology testing device. To understand why this is a big deal, you have to understand the differences between "Class II" and "Class III" virology testing devices.

Based on FDA rules, a Class III virology testing device is one that is considered by the FDA to have "premarket approval," meaning that it cannot yet be sold to the public. In order for such a device to be marketed to the public, it must be downgraded to Class II status, which is considered a "special controls" status. Class II devices are, "...those devices for which the general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for which there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance, including performance standards, postmarket surveillance, patient registries, development and dissemination of guidelines, recommendations, and any other appropriate actions the agency deems necessary."

In other words, a Class II device may or may not actually be safe, but the FDA considers is safe enough to release to the public.

HiFi DNA Tech has been trying to get its HPV detection device downgraded to a Class II device based on the following arguments:

• For more than 20 years, the FDA had regulated the HPV test as a "test for cervical cancer."

• But since at least 2003, the FDA has changed its position on the relationship between Human Papilloma Virus and cervical cancer, stating that the HPV strain is "not associated with cervical cancer."

• Accordingly, HiFi DNA Tech is arguing that the HPV test it has developed is no longer a test for cervical cancer, but is merely a test for the presence of Human Papilloma Viruses -- a shift that makes the test far more reliable in its primary purpose. In other words, the test is merely detecting the presence of a virus, not making a diagnosis of a disease (which would be a much higher standard to meet).

On October 12, 2007, HiFi DNA Tech sued the Food and Drug Administration in an attempt to force it to downgrade its HPV detection technology to Class II (see http://www.news-medical.net/?id=31180 ). Earlier in the year -- on March 7, 2007, HiFi DNA Tech filed the HPV PCR test reclassification petition with the FDA. It is the information in this petition document that led us to the FDA's knowledge that HPV is not linked to cervical cancer.

Got all that? This is a somewhat complex story to follow, so here it is again in summary:

• A company that manufacturers a DNA testing device that can detect the presence of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) is petitioning the FDA (and suing the FDA) to get it to reclassify its medical device as a "Class II" device based on the revelation that the FDA has already adopted the position that HPV infections do not directly cause cervical cancer.

• This would mean that the FDA has been aware for years that HPV does not cause cervical cancer, which means that the FDA's approval of the Gardasil vaccine -- as well as the national push for Gardasil vaccinations -- is based on a grand medical hoax that, not surprisingly, appears to be designed to exploit the fear of cancer to sell vaccines. The victims in all this, of course, are the young girls who are apparently being subjected to a medically useless (and potentially dangerous) vaccine.

• None of this information was apparently known during the more recent debates over the safety and efficacy of Gardasil, the HPV vaccine now in use. This means that the public debate over mandatory HPV vaccinations lacked key elements that now seem essential to reaching rational, evidence-based conclusions over the safety and efficacy of such vaccines.

The Reclassification Petition, dated March 7, 2007, is still posted on the FDA's website: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf

In case the FDA removes this document (as it has been known to do), we've posted a backup copy of the document on our own servers: http://www.NewsTarget.com/downloads/FDA-HPV.pdf

This document reveals the following text:

The FDA news release of March 31, 2003 acknowledges that "most infections (by HPV) are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer", in recognition of the advances in medical science and technology since 1988. In other words, since 2003 the scientific staff of the FDA no longer considers HPV infection to be a high-risk disease when writing educational materials for the general public whereas the regulatory arm of the agency is still bound by the old classification scheme that had placed HPV test as a test to stratify risk for cervical cancer in regulating the industry.

NewsTarget sought to verify the existence of the FDA news release referenced by this petition reclassification document and found that, indeed, the FDA news release exists. In fact, it's still posted on the FDA website at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html

In it, the FDA says, "The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute for regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this group is high, most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer." (Emphasis added.)

In other words, the FDA knew in 2003 that HPV infections are not associated with cervical cancer.

Furthermore, the FDA states, in the same press release, "Most women who become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus and suffer no apparent long-term consequences to their health."

In other words, HPV infections do not cause cervical cancer! Remember, the entire push for mandatory HPV vaccinations of young girls across the country has been the urgent call to "save" these young girls from cervical cancer. The vaccine push has been about "savings lives." But as these documents clearly reveal, HPV is no threat to the lives of young girls. In fact, as you will see below, HPV infections are naturally self-limiting!

HPV Infections Resolve Themselves, Without Vaccines

As the reclassification petition reveals, HPV infections are naturally self-limiting -- meaning that they are controlled naturally, without requiring intervention with drugs or vaccines. It is not the HPV virus itself that causes cervical cancer but rather a persistent state of ill-health on the part of the patient that makes her vulnerable to persistent infections.

As the petition states:

"Based on new scientific information published in the past 15 years, it is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV infection does not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for cervical cancer . Most acute infections caused by HPV are self-limiting [1, 4-7]. ...Repeated sequential transient HPV infections, even when caused by "high-risk" HPVs, are characteristically not associated with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer.

A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of HPV on repeated testing is highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV infection and is considered to be at high risk of developing precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the persistent infection, not the virus, that determines the cancer risk."

The FDA agrees with this assessment of the relationship between HPV and cervical cancer, as evidenced by its 2003 news release quoted above.

The reclassification petition cited above also reveals that Gardasil vaccines may increase the risk of developing precancerous lesions by 44.6 percent in some groups of women. This is found in a quote referencing a document mentioned in the petition, which states:

"PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with Gardasil of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document : Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf"

NewsTarget tracked down the correct URL of the document referenced above and found it in the FDA docket archives. We have placed a safe backup copy at: http://www.NewsTarget.com/downloads/FDA-Gardasil.pdf

Sure enough, this document reveals startling information about the extreme dangers apparently posed by Gardasil vaccinations. On page 13, this document states:

"Concerns Regarding Primary Endpoint Analyses among Subgroups

There were two important concerns that were identified during the course of the efficacy review of this BLA. One was the potential for Gardasil to enhance disease among a subgroup of subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types at baseline. The other concern was the observations of CIN 2/3 or worse cases due to HPV types not contained in the vaccine. These cases of disease due to other HPV types have the potential to counter the efficacy results of Gardasil for the HPV types contained in the vaccine.

1. Evaluation of the potential of Gardasil™ to enhance cervical disease in subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types prior to vaccination. The results of exploratory subgroup analyses for study 013 suggested a concern that subjects who were seropositive and PCR-positive for the vaccine-relevant HPV types had a greater number of CIN 2/3 or worse cases as demonstrated in the following table:

Observed Efficacy
- 44.6%

It appeared that subjects in this subgroup of study 013 who received Gardasil™ might have had enhanced risk factors for development of CIN 2/3 or worse compared to placebo recipients."

Revealing the Dangers of Gardasil

This revelation should be quite shocking to anyone who has been following the debate over Gardasil and mandatory vaccinations of teenage girls. First, it reveals that Gardasil appears to increase disease by 44.6 percent in certain people -- namely, those who were already carriers of the same HPV strains used in the vaccine.

In other words, it appears that if the vaccine is given to a young woman who already carries HPV in a "harmless" state, it may "activate" the infection and directly cause precancerous lesions to appear. The vaccine, in other words, may accelerate the development of precancerous lesions in women.

This is information that has simply not been made available in the debate over Gardasil vaccination policies. The pro-vaccination rhetoric has always been about "saving lives" and it carried the implied statement that Gardasil is perfectly safe for all women, posing absolutely no increased risk of cancer. What these documents reveal, however, is that Gardasil may, in fact, pose a serious increase in the risk of cervical cancer in some recipients of the vaccine.

The FDA directly admits the vaccine is utterly useless in these women, stating in the same document, "Finally, there is compelling evidence that the vaccine lacks therapeutic efficacy among women who have had prior exposure to HPV and have not cleared previous infection (PCR positive and seropositive)."

What this essentially means is that the "safe" administering of the Gardasil vaccine requires that it be administered only to virgins (because virtually all women who are sexually active carry HPV strains). That, of course, would require the direct questioning of the sexual habits of all young girls before administering the vaccine.

Is this what the Governor of Texas really had in mind when he mandated such vaccinations for all young girls in Texas? ... a male doctor with a vaccination needle in his hand and a thirteen-year-old girl sitting in a private clinic room behind closed doors, with the male doctor asking her, "Have you ever had sex?"

Clearly, this kind of patient questioning crosses all kinds of ethical barriers when such vaccinations are made mandatory (as they have been made in Texas). It puts the State in the positioning of ascertaining the sexual habits of very young teenage girls and then potentially causing them harm. It's not hard to suppose that most sexually active teenage girls would claim to still be virgins (especially if their parents were present), creating a situation where vaccines would be routinely administered to precisely the HPV carrier subgroups for which it has been demonstrated to greatly increase the risk of precancerous lesions.

In other words, under a mandatory Gardasil vaccination scenario like what exists in Texas today, a sexually-active young teenage girl has to make a tough choice:

1) She can lie to her doctor, claim to be a virgin, receive the vaccine and thereby potentially increase her risk of cervical cancer.

2) She can tell her doctor she's sexually active, thereby surrendering her privacy and possibly subjecting herself to various consequences from her sexual status being learned by her parents or guardians. (One would hope, of course, that such sexual habits were not secrets, but alas, we live in the real world where many teenage girls do indeed have sex at a very early age...)

Furthermore, the young girl is unlikely to be given accurate information about the health risks associated with the vaccine, since virtually all health authorities are heavily involved in promoting pro-vaccination propaganda, routinely ignoring scientific evidence that might give reasonable people pause.

Naturally, the better scenario here is that the young girl is not sexually active to begin with, but in a society where 8th and 9th graders are already routinely engaged in sexual activities -- almost always unbeknownst to their parents -- it seems naive to expect that such girls would suddenly honor pledges of celibacy in order to protect themselves from possible future dangers posed by a present-day vaccine (especially when doctors blindly claim the vaccine is harmless).

There are also serious questions about the safety of the vaccine for non-sexually-active young women. Yet even if the vaccine poses no increased risk of cervical cancer for non-sexually-active young girls, there's still the more serious question of: Does the vaccine work? Does it really prevent cervical cancer in the first place? And that question has already been clearly answered by the FDA's own admission that HPV infections are not the cause of cervical cancer in the first place.

When considering the safety and effectiveness of Gardasil vaccinations on young teens, there are essentially four quadrants to consider, as shown in the table below:

Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active No Gardasil Vaccine	Quadrant II: Non-Sexually Active Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Quadrant III: Sexually Active No Gardasil Vaccine	Quadrant IV: Sexually Active Receives Gardasil Vaccine

Based on what we've learned from the FDA's own documents, here are the likely outcomes of each of the four quadrants:

Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: No risk of cervical cancer.

Quadrant II: Non-Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: No medical benefit from vaccine.

Quadrant III: Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: HPV presence is self-limiting and does not lead to cervical cancer.

Quadrant IV: Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
Outcome: 44.6% Increased risk of precancerous lesions. No reduction in cancer risk.

In other words, Gardasil adds no benefits to any quadrant! There is no subgroup that actually benefits from a Gardasil vaccination. But there is at least one quadrant in which Gardasil achieves an increased risk of disease. Put another way, Gardasil helps no one, but it harms some.

This is hardly a position from which to mandate the vaccine for everyone, especially since the vaccine has been widely prescribed as "completely safe" for everyone. It is widely claimed by medical authorities that the vaccine has no downside: No health risks, no increased risk of disease and no potential to cause harm in women. Clearly, these assumptions have no basis in scientific fact.

Keep in mind, too, that Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, has publicly suggested that young boys should receive Gardasil vaccinations! Why? Because they might engage in oral sex with girls who carry the virus. Therefore, the story goes, young boys should be vaccinated against this virus that they claim causes cervical cancer! (Never mind the fact that boys don't have a cervix...) There is no end, it seems, to the pseudoscientific nonsense that will be spouted in an effort to sell more Garsasil vaccines to people who don't need them.

To further investigate this conclusion, NewsTarget took a closer look at research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (August, 2007), entitled, "Effect of Human Papillomavirus 16/18 L1 Viruslike Particle Vaccine Among Young Women With Preexisting Infection"

This research sought to determine the usefulness of the HPV vaccine among women who already carry HPV (which includes virtually all women who are sexually active, regardless of their age).

This document can currently be found at a University of Louisville document archive reprinted from JAMA. Click here to read the PDF yourself.

Just in case that copy disappears, we've also hosted the PDF here: http://www.newstarget.com/downloads/HPV-Vaccine-Effects.pdf

This document reveals startling information about the ineffectiveness of the Gardasil vaccine. It reveals that the HPV vaccine often caused an increase in the presence of HPV strains while utterly failing to clear the viruses in most women.

These shocking results caused the study authors to publish this sobering conclusion, printed in JAMA:

"No significant evidence of a vaccine therapeutic effect was observed in analyses restricted to women who received all doses of vaccine or those with evidence of single HPV infections at entry (Table2). We observed no evidence of vaccine effects when we stratified the analysis on selected study entry characteristics reflective of [various parameters] (TABLE3). Similarly, no evidence of vaccine effects was observed in analyses stratified by other study entry parameters thought to potentially influence clearance rates and efficacy of the vaccine, including time since sexual initiation, oral contraceptive use, cigarette smoking, and concomitant infection with C trachomatis or N gonorrhoeae (Table 3)."

In other words, the authors found no evidence that the vaccine worked at all. This observation led the authors to offer this damning conclusion that appears to render Gardasil nothing more than a grand medical hoax:

"... rates of viral clearance over a 12-month period are not influenced by vaccination."

The study goes on to state words that should cause every doctor, Governor and health authority across the United States (and around the world) to rethink Gardasil vaccination policies:

"...given that viral clearance rates did not differ by treatment group and that persistent viral infection is the best established predictor of risk of progression, it is unlikely that vaccination could have a significant beneficial impact on rate of lesion progression.1,17

Results from our community-based study provide strong evidence that there is little, if any, therapeutic benefit from the vaccine in the population we studied. Furthermore, we see no reason to believe that there is therapeutic benefit of the vaccine elsewhere because the biological effect of vaccination among already infected women is not expected to vary by population.

In other words, the vaccines didn't work on the population studied, and there is no reason to believe that those same vaccines would magically work on other populations, since the biology of women and HPV is so similar across various populations.

It is difficult to take an honest look at this scientific evidence and the statements made by the FDA and not come to the conclusion that mandatory Gardasil vaccination policies being pushed across U.S. states right now are based on something other than science.

There are many theories exploring the motivation for such vaccination policies. Possible theories include:

Financial benefit: Big Pharma is pushing mandatory Gardasil vaccination policies so that it can profit from selling more vaccines to the states. This idea is at least partially supported by the fact that the first state Governor to mandate such vaccines (Texas Gov. Rick Perry) had undisclosed ties to Big Pharma. (A top official in Perry's administration worked directly for Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil.)

Conspiracy to poison the people: This theory, which may stretch the bounds of belief in some readers, proposes that such mandatory vaccines are put in place in order to create future disease by poisoning the people with dangerous chemicals and DNA fragments that are knowingly added to vaccines. The poisoning of the people, it is said, will pay off in future profits for Big Pharma when those people develop other serious diseases requiring "treatment" with medications. Many people who support this theory currently believe, for example, that AIDS was engineered by human scientists and then administered to the gay population in New York in the late 1980's through vaccines.

Control the sheeple: This theory supposes that the main purpose of mandatory vaccines is to train the American public to get used to submitting to compulsory medicines. Once a certain segment of the population is targeted and effectively injected with mandatory medicines, these policies can be extended to other groups and, eventually, can encompass the entire population.

The first theory -- Financial Benefit -- is the simplest and easiest theory to believe. It requires nothing more than simple greed on the part of Big Pharma, along with the usual level of corruption at the FDA. NewsTarget believes this is the most likely explanation for events surrounding Gardasil vaccination policies, but we do not rule out other possible explanations, either.

Profits at Any Cost

What's clear in all this is that mandatory HPV vaccination programs are not based on anything resembling good science. They seem to be based on a carefully planted meme -- an idea that, coincidentally, spreads from one person's mind to the next much like a virus, gaining momentum as the mainstream media (MSM), health authorities, FDA and drug company reps repeat the meme on a regular basis. And what is that meme? That HPV causes cervical cancer, and, therefore, HPV vaccinations could halt cervical cancer and save lives.

This meme appears to have no real scientific basis. It is more of an urban legend than anything resembling scientific fact. Furthermore, it appears to have been conjured by those in a position to financially benefit from the adoption of that meme (the drug companies who manufacture, sell, and profit from the sale of HPV vaccines). In this case, that drug company is Merck, a powerful corporation with a dubious history rife with charges of price fixing, large-scale tax avoidance (it set up offshore accounts to avoid billions in U.S. taxes), widespread biopiracy, conspiring with the FDA to discredit its critics, burying negative evidence about its drugs (see the history of Vioxx at www.NewsTarget.com/vioxx.html ) and numerous other actions that many consider to be criminal in nature.

There is no question that Merck has the lack of ethics, the willingness and the means to commit medical fraud on an unprecedented scale. Based on the information revealed in this report, the mandatory vaccination of young girls with Gardasil appears to be the boldest medical hoax yet perpetrated by the company. You can read the true history about Merck and its crimes at: http://www.newstarget.com/Merck.html

NewsTarget believes Merck is currently engaged in a massive medical fraud, and that it has influenced, corrupted or otherwise recruited FDA officials and state health authorities in a grand scheme to sell vaccines that are at best medically worthless, and at worst medically dangerous. Halting cervical cancer seems to have nothing to do with the marketing and prescribing of Gardasil. The entire campaign push for mandatory HPV vaccinations seems to be based entirely in the realm of sales and marketing.

The "marketing" of HPV vaccines involves classic disease mongering -- spreading fear about a disease as a way of corralling patients into begging for the "solution" that just happens to be readily available from the same pharmaceutical company that promoted the disease in the first place. The hype over cervical cancer and Gardasil seems to be nothing more than a classic case of fear-based marketing designed to create such consumer fear over cervical cancer that a massive public outcry would result in legislation mandating the vaccines.

Please share this article with others.

Permission is granted to reprint this article in its entirety, for any non-commercial purpose, as long as full credit is given to the author (Mike Adams) and a clearly visible clickable link is placed back to this URL at NewsTarget.com. You may also freely quote from this article with proper citation.

source article

source cited:

HiFi DNA Tech files lawsuit against FDA
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=31180

Reclassification Petition - Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Detection Device (K063649 )
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf

FDA Approves Expanded Use of HPV Test
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html

VRBPAC Background Document, Gardasil™ HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine, May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf

Effect of Human Papillomavirus 16/18 L1 Viruslike Particle Vaccine Among Young Women With Preexisting Infection, Journal of the American Medical Association, August, 2007

Processed Meat Unsafe For Human Consumption; Cancer Experts Warn of Dietary Dangers

2007-11-26T18:39:24Z

by Mike Adams

World cancer experts have finally declared what NewsTarget readers learned nearly four years ago: That processed meats cause cancer, and anyone seeking to avoid cancer should avoid eating all processed meats for life.

Hundreds of cancer researchers took part in a five-year project spanning more than 7,000 clinical studies and designed to document the links between diet and cancer. Their conclusion, published in the World Cancer Research Fund's report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective (2007), has rocked the health world with a declaration that all people should immediately stop buying and eating processed meat products and that all processed meat should be avoided for life!

]]> chemical additives that are known to greatly increase the risk of various cancers, including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, brain tumors, pancreatic cancer and many more. The report, published at this DietAndCancerReport.org website

• Avoid all sugary soft drinks for life.
• Exercise at least 30 minutes a day.
• Get lean and fit, without becoming underweight.
• Limit consumption of ALL meats (even fresh meat).
• Breastfeed all infants for their first six months, avoiding infant formula.

Sadly, the WCRF still does not recommend that consumers use nutritional supplements to help protect themselves from cancer, indicating that the group still has a lot to learn about the role of medicinal mushrooms, sea vegetables, microalgae, Chinese herbs, rainforest herbs and superfood extracts in preventing and reversing cancer. But at least the group's recommendation that consumers now avoid all processed meat products is a huge step in the right direction. It is the first time that any internationally-recognized cancer organization has found the courage to make a partial proclaimation about the health hazards of the chemicals found in processed meat products. It's almost as big a deal as when the American Medical Association, after years of taking millions of dollars from tobacco companies, finally admitted that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease. (A decade after the scientific evidence was irrefutable, of course, but then again, the AMA was making money off Big Tobacco by running tobacco ads in JAMA...)

also recommends that consumers:

What is "processed meat" exactly?

A woman asked me this question at a recent live event where I was warning the audience about the dangers of chemicals found in popular grocery products. Frankly, I was surprised to hear the question. But I've since learned that many people really don't know the difference between processed meat and non-processed meat ("fresh" meat).

Here's the difference:

Fresh meat usually has only one ingredient: The meat! Fresh meat is refrigerated and has a very short shelf life (just a few days, usually). It's usually packaged in simple wrappers, with no fancy logos or color printing.

Processed meat has many ingredients and is usually packaged for long-term shelf life. These products almost always contain sodium nitrite, the cancer-causing chemical additive that meat companies use as a color fixer to turn their meat products a bright red "fresh-looking" color. Processed meat products include:

• Bacon
• Sausage
• Pepperoni
• Beef jerky
• Deli slices
• Hot dogs
• Sandwich meat (including those served at restaurants)
• Ham
• Meat "gift" products like Christmas sausages
• Meat used in canned soups
• Meat used in frozen pizza
• Meat used in kid's lunch products
• Meat used in ravioli, spaghetti or Italian pasta products

... and many more meat products.

Unless it says "NITRITE FREE" on the front label, you can bet it's made with cancer-causing sodium

(Hint: You will only find nitrite-free meat products in two places in the grocery store: 1) In the fresh meat section where you can buy freshly-ground hamburger, for example, and 2) In the freezer, where you can find "natural" meat products that are nitrite-free.

nitrite!

What are the dangerous chemicals in processed meats?

Sodium nitrite is one of the most dangerous chemicals added to processed meats. Please be aware:

• You MUST read the ingredients list to find the sodium nitrite! Meat product companies do not list this ingredient on the front of the package.

• Even ORGANIC meat products and NATURAL meat products can still contain sodium nitrite. So read the labels to be sure, and avoid buying any meat product made with sodium nitrite.

• Be especially careful of food for kids! Virtually all packaged food products containing meat and marketed to children contain sodium nitrite! (Read the ingredients to protect your children.)

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a second dangerous chemical found in virtually all processed meat products. MSG is a dangerous excitotoxin linked to neurological disorders such as migraine headaches, Alzheimer's disease, loss of appetite control, obesity and many other serious health conditions. Manufacturers use MSG to add flavor to dead-tasting processed meat products.

Essentially, dead meat products look and taste dead (because they are), so meat companies use the following three ingredients to make them look fresh and taste interesting:

Sodium nitrite makes the meat look red and fresh. (But it promotes cancer.)

MSG makes the meat taste savory. (But it causes neurological disorders.)

Processed salt makes the meat taste more interesting. (But it causes nutritional problems and high blood pressure.)

On top of these three chemical additives, processed meats also contain saturated animal fat that is often contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals, pesticide residues and other dangerous substances.

You can learn more about dangerous chemicals in the food supply in my book, Grocery Warning, available from Truth Publishing.

Or you can download my free Honest Food Guide from www.HonestFoodGuide.org which reveals the true health dangers of numerous chemicals added to processed foods. The Honest Food Guide has now been downloaded by over one million people.

Protect yourself and your family

Processed meats promote cancer. There is simply no question about the scientific validity of that statement, and anyone who disagrees with it is either working for the meat industry or hopelessly behind the times on their nutritional research.

The processed meat industry, of course, insists that processed meat is perfectly healthy and that you can eat all you want. It's no surprise, of course: Big Tobacco insisted that cigarettes aren't really bad for your health and that nicotine isn't addictive, either. No industry is really willing to admit that its products are hazardous to human health, and the processed meat industry is no exception.

To protect yourself from these dangerous processed food products, here are the action steps to take:

1) Check the ingredients of all processed meat products in your refrigerator and pantry. Throw out any products containing sodium nitrite or MSG (monosodium glutamate).

2) Inform your spouse, roomates or children of what you're doing and why you're doing it. Show them the sodium nitrite right on the label of the products as you throw them out. Let them know that the World Cancer Research Fund now recommends that ALL consumers avoiding eating processed meats for life!

3) Boycott all processed meat products for life! Never buy processed meats again. That includes shopping at the grocery store, eating at a restaurant or consuming foods at a social event.

4) Spread the word. Tell others about the dangers of sodium nitrite. Print out the Honest Food Guide (www.HonestFoodGuide.com) and share it, if you want. Let people know that processed meats are dangerous for their health.

What's next: The future of processed meats

My research tells me that chemical additives in processed meats are emerging as the next big food safety issue to hit mainstream awareness. Just a few years ago, most consumers had never heard of trans fats or the dangers of hydrogenated oils, for example. But once that issue went mainstream, fast food restaurants all over the country announced changes to avoid hydrogenated oils.

I believe that sodium nitrite in processed meats is the next big food safety issue that's about to break into mainstream awareness. More and more consumers are suddenly aware that hot dogs bacon consumption is incredibly bad for your health. As awareness of this issue builds, there's going to be increasing political pressure to pass laws that protect the public by strictly limited or banning the use of sodium nitrite in processed meats.

The meat industry, of course, which seems to have absolutely no respect for human or animal life, will fight this every inch of the way. The people in charge of meat-producing companies exhibit zero concern for the health of the consumers who actually eat their products, and they remain entirely focused on the profits to be had from selling more toxic meat products to gullible consumers.

But just like Big Tobacco's marketing methods and fraudulent science was finally exposed as wholesale fraud, the processed meat industry is going to have to face scientific facts sooner or later: Sodium nitrite promotes cancer, and eating processed meat products substantially increases your risk of cancer. There's no denying it or arguing about it, at least not by any sane person. Eating cancer-causing chemicals is blatantly and irrefutably dangerous to your health.

promote cancer, or that

Why some people commit nutritional suicide

Of course, many low-income, low-education consumers still continue to smoke cigarettes AND eat processed meat products. (Attend any NASCAR event and you'll find a whole crowd of 'em!) But the smart consumers (who represent the real future of human civilization, by the way) are wising up and increasingly opting for healthier foods made without dangerous chemicals.

There are people in society today who exhibit a strong desire to commit nutritional suicide. For those people, there is beef jerky, hot dogs, frozen pizza, cigarettes and over-hyped "energy" drinks. The future of these people is easy to see: Cancer, diabetes, heart disease, chemotherapy, pharmaceuticals, pain, death and bankruptcy.

Thankfully, there are other people who believe in taking care of their health and in living informed lives with outstanding health. For these people, there are living foods, superfoods, raw cacao, sprouts, rainforest herbs, sunshine, juicing and joyful exercise. Their future is also clear: Exceptional mental performance, freedom from chronic pain, excellent vitality and longevity, spiritual awareness, abundant living and much more.

Which group do you want to belong to?

You make that decision every time you shop for food. When you buy processed meats, you put yourself on a timeline track towards disease, suffering and medical victimization. But when you avoid meat products and focus on a plant-based diet, you are creating a future filled of abundance and health. It's up to you to decide which of these futures you'd rather create.

Regardless of which future you choose, there's no judgement from me. You're free to do what you want with your life and your own body. Some people choose to abuse their bodies as chemical playgrounds, living in the moment and dying young. That's their choice. Others choose to extend their lives and honor their bodies, living an extended, purpose-filled life. That's fine, too. I don't really care how people live their lives, I just want people to live consciously and understand that their decisions create results.

Anyone who decides to eat processed meat products on a repeated basis is simply creating a result. That result is cancer, and over enough years, that cancer will grow to the point where it shows up on a scan. That's when the doctor says, "You have cancer" and starts prescribing even more toxic chemicals known as chemotherapy agents. This is not a disease with an unknown cause. In fact, cancer is incredibly easy to both prevent AND cure -- but only if you understand the fundamentals of nutrition.

For now, just remember:

Processed meats = sodium nitrite = cancer

If you don't want cancer, don't eat processed meats. Ever.

(And if you really want to be healthy, eat a plant-based diet for life. But that's another article altogether...)

source

Cancer: Prevention is the cure

2007-10-10T20:32:18Z

(NewsTarget) Many people have heard the saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. When it comes to cancer, this couldn’t be truer. To date several billion dollars, over 30 years have been spent on finding that elusive cure for cancer. What about cancer prevention? It is estimated that a woeful fraction of that amount of money has been spent on cancer prevention. The statistics from the Nutrition Journal state that cancer can be prevented in 30-40 percent of known cases through lifestyle factors, such as diet, exercise and maintaining a healthy body weight. The 30-40 percent stated as preventable by the Nutrition Journal, many in fact, be a conservative estimate, as suggested by many wellness practitioners. Cancer costs the US 107 billion annually. Finding a cure is costing us a great deal, but lack of prevention is costing us more.]]> A review, based on 238 studies published in the Nutrition Journal conducted by Michael Donaldson for the Hallelujah Acres Foundation, has outlined an anti-cancer diet, which includes what to eat, and what to avoid, in order to prevent cancer.

The outline of the recommended diet is as follows:

• adequate, but not excessive calories,

• 10 or more servings of vegetables a day, including cruciferous and allium vegetables; vegetable juice could meet part of this goal,

• 4 or more servings of fruits a day,

• high in fiber,

• no refined sugar,

• no refined flour,

• low in total fat, but containing necessary essential fatty acids,

• no red meat,

• a balanced ratio of omega 3 and omega 6 fats and would include DHA,

• flax seed as a source of phytoestrogens,

• supplemented with ~200 μg/day selenium,

• supplemented with 1,000 μg/day methylcobalamin (B-12),

• very rich in folic acid (from dark green vegetables),

• adequate sunshine to get vitamin D, or use 1,000 IU/day supplement,

• very rich in antioxidants and phytochemicals from fruits and vegetables, including α-carotene, β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, vitamin C (from foods), vitamin E (from foods),

• very rich in chlorophyll,

• supplemented with beneficial probiotics,

• supplemented with oral enzymes

When you start to change your diet to a diet that is full of anti-cancer foods, you may wonder why there is so much junk out there, and, why is it so much cheaper to buy a package of chips vice a bag of organic apples.

The best thing you can do for you body right now to prevent cancer, is to start eating this recommended anti-cancer diet. Many of these recommendations will not be big news to those that take serious responsibility for their health.

source

Top 20 things that are more dangerous to children than lead paint in Mattel toys

2007-09-06T09:24:58Z

NewsTarget published a very interesting article regarding different factors that are damaging our health.

Parents directly poison their children every day with products far more dangerous than Mattel toys.

Read the full article below

]]>
But here's the interesting part in all this: Parents directly poison their children every day with products far more dangerous than Mattel toys. Don't believe me? I'll name twenty things in this article that are far more dangerous to children than Mattel toys. It doesn't mean Mattel toys are safe, of course. They apparently do contain unacceptably high levels of lead, and there's no question about the toxicity of lead. But children don't eat toys nearly as often as they eat some other toxic substances given to them by their parents, and even as parents are herding back into retailers to refund their toxic lead-laden toys, they're returning home and poisoning their children with many other products that are far worse.

The press, of course, reports nothing about these other toxic products. And why? Because they're made in America.

American products poisoning American children

American products, you see, are often given blanket immunity by the U.S. press. While the media is happy to jump on toxic lead found in Chinese products, they completely ignore (for example) the toxic mercury that dentists continue to place into the mouths of young children all across the country. Why is it considered highly dangerous for a child to merely touch a toy with .06 percent lead paint while it is considered perfectly safe for a child to chew on a filling made with 40 percent mercury? Mercury is far more toxic than lead in many ways, yet the media has nothing to say about the mass poisoning of children through the outmoded dental work still being performed on children today. Mercury fillings were invented before the Civil War, and they're just as toxic now as they were then!

Of course, if dental fillings were made in China, the U.S. press would be screaming about their toxicity! But since they're installed by crazed U.S. dentists -- many of whom still manage to seem convincingly sane -- there's zero coverage in the mainstream media.

Reporting the truth about dangerous chemicals, heavy metals and other threats to children is extremely selective. The public never hears the real truth about what's dangerous -- they only hear what the media want them to think is dangerous!

But I've had it with popular media distortions. Here, I'm going to reveal the top 20 things that are more dangerous to children than the lead paint in Mattel toys. Interestingly, most of these are things that parents intentionally give their children (or feed to them!). If you're worried about lead paint, you should be far more worried about these 20 things...

The top 20 things that are more dangerous to children than lead paint in Mattel toys

1. Mercury fillings
Often called "silver fillings" to hide the fact that they're made from mercury, these highly toxic fillings are placed directly into the mouths of children where they are inhaled (mercury vapor) and swallowed, causing systemic mercury poisoning to the child and leading to long-term neurological damage. Visit www.IAOMT.org and watch the "Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas" video to learn more.

2. Vaccines
Think vaccines are safe? You've been hoodwinked by the popular media parroting drug company propaganda. Vaccines are preserved with methyl mercury, one of the most dangerous chemical forms of the toxic heavy metal. This mercury is injected directly into the bodies of children where it causes severe neurological damage. And yes, it does cause Autism, despite what you've read in the dumbed-down press. Only a fool would inject their child with mercury-preserved vaccines.

3. Hot dogs
Hot dogs are made with horrifying processed meat parts (click here to see shocking photos of processed meat products, then preserved with a cancer-causing ingredient called sodium nitrite. As detailed in my book Grocery Warning, this ingredient causes brain tumors in children, not to mention leukemia, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer and other cancers. Hot dogs are far more dangerous to a child's health than lead paint in my opinion, and yet parents keep feeding them to their children!

4. Antibacterial soap
How about a little nerve toxin in your soap? That's what's found in antibacterial soap. It's a toxic cocktail of chemicals designed to kill life. That's how it kills bacteria. The problem is that it also harms people -- especially infants and children who are trying to develop healthy nervous systems. Avoid all products claiming to be "antibacterial." You're better off using natural soap (like Dr. Bronner's soap, www.DrBronner.com ) and letting your child's immune system fight off common bacteria. The world isn't sterile, after all. You can't turn your house into a germ-free bubble.

5. ADHD drugs
Would you give your child street drugs like speed or meth? Probably not, but what if your doctor wrote you a prescription for speed and said your child needed it because he was ADHD? If you're like most parents, you'd fall in step and start giving your child speed. But wait, you say: ADHD drugs are not speed, are they? But of course they are. They belong to a class of drugs called amphetamines. They used to be illegally sold as speed. Now they're prescription drugs, and they're given to children in schools all across America (and elsewhere). Psychiatrists and drug companies are making a killing dosing up kids and infants on substances that used to be considered illegal street drugs (and that have no legitimate medical use whatsoever).

6. Sports drinks
For some reason, parents irrationally believe sports drinks are healthy because they contain the word "sports." Didn't they notice the neon green artificial coloring? Sports drinks are, in my opinion, a nutritional joke. Made from salt water, processed sweeteners and petrochemical coloring, many of their ingredients are actually harmful. Drinking water would be smarter, and feeding your child some healthy trace minerals would be even better. Low on potassium? Eat a banana.

7. Cough syrup and over-the-counter medicines
Nearly all children's over-the-counter medicines contain multiple toxic substances such as chemical sweeteners, preservatives and additives. Cough syrup, in particular, has been scientifically proven to be absolutely worthless in preventing coughs. Many "children's" medicines are actually more toxic than their adult counterparts because they're sweetened up and cosmetically enhanced with artificial colors made from petrochemicals. Yet parents poison their children every day with over-the-counter medicine.

8. Sunscreen
The sunscreen industry is a huge scam. Most popular sunscreen products actually cause skin cancer due to the numerous toxic chemicals they contain (which are quickly absorbed into the skin where they cause DNA mutations that lead to cancer). Even worse, sunscreen blocks the UV radiation that allows the skin to manufacture all-important vitamin D -- the most powerful anti-cancer nutrient yet known to modern science. It prevents over a dozen different cancers, yet parents block it by slathering toxic sunscreen on their children, all while mistakenly believing they're "protecting their children from cancer!" What a scam.

9. Fluoride in the water
I've always found it amazing that city water officials were dumb enough to actually buy a toxic waste substance and arrange to have it dripped into the public water supply where it would be ingested by infants and children. The result? Mass fluorosis and toxicity to children everywhere. Didn't these people realize that fluoride only works topically? (That is, it only works if you rub it on your teeth, then spit it out, and even that only works if you're using natural fluoride, not the chemicals spit out as byproducts of the fertilizer industry, which is what city water departments are buying and dripping into the water supply.) Click here to see my CounterThink cartoon on this topic.

Whoever heard of drinking a topical medication in the first place? It's like swallowing sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Even worse, putting this into the public water supply effectively mass medicates everyone with a bioactive chemical substance that no one has been given a prescription for. This is all done with no regard for the level of natural fluoride children might already be ingesting from other sources. The situation is so crazy that it's difficult to find a more insane example of medical tyranny than the mass fluoridation of public water supplies. The fact that doctors and dentists so vehemently support it demonstrates just how crazy they really are.

10. Processed milk
Children as young as 10 years old are now being diagnosed with heart disease and clogged arteries. Ever wonder how it happened? It's due in part, I believe, to all the processed milk children are swallowing these days. Not only is the milk contaminated with pus, blood and detectable levels of pesticides and other chemicals, it's also homogenized, meaning the fats are artificially modified in a way that makes them stay in suspension. This homogenization also makes milk fats dangerous to cardiovascular health. While I support the consumption of raw, unprocessed milk, I think that consuming processed, homogenized milk is dangerous to the health of infants, children and adults alike!

11. Fast food
Fast food is extremely unhealthy for children. Not only are the foods often fried, homogenized, hydrogenated and otherwise altered, they're also laced with chemical additives, taste enhancers, processed sugars, petrochemical food coloring and other unhealthy substances. Strangely, many parents actually reward their children for good behavior by buying them unhealthy fast food meals, thereby creating a psychological association between good feelings and junk food. (Fast food restaurants further exploit this psychological link by building playgrounds and running feel-good advertisements that emphasize friends and fun, then link those good vibes to their food products.)

12. Antidepressant drugs
Children as young as six months old are now being put on psychotropic drugs such as SSRIs (antidepressants). These drugs, we now know, cause suicidal thoughts and violent behavior, especially in young boys. They imbalance brain chemistry and even alter the body's metabolism of sugar, promoting diabetes and leading to rapid weight gain. These drugs are so dangerous that feeding them to children should be considered a crime. Every single school shooting involving a child in the United States in the last 15 years has been linked to antidepressant drug use. Need I say more?

13. Chemical laundry detergents
Parents are shown fancy ads on television depicting how wonderful and clean their clothes will be if they wash them in brand-name laundry detergent. What they're not shown, however, is the toxicity of all the synthetic chemicals that go into most laundry detergent products. The fragrance chemicals alone are often carcinogenic, and they're just as bad for the environment as they are children's health. A new alternative has appeared, however: Soap berries! It's laundry soap that grows on trees. We offer it at www.BetterLifeGoods.com

14. Flame retardant chemicals
Did you know that new mattresses for infants and children are often sprayed with extremely toxic flame retardant chemicals? These are easily absorbed through the skin of infants and children where they contribute to numerous neurological disorders and immune suppression. Many clothing products are also sprayed with flame retardants, as are some carpeting products. In the push to make everything fireproof, state regulators (who have mandated the flame retardant chemicals in states like California) have created a toxic environment for everyone. I suppose if you're a politician, it's always better for a million people to die of a mysterious disease that can't be linked to you than to have one baby burning up on the evening news with fingers of blame pointed directly at you.

15. Soda
Aside from directly promoting diabetes and obesity, sodas also contain high amounts of phosphoric acid, a substance that dissolves bones and causes a loss of bone mineral density. This causes massive tooth decay as well as a shrinking jaw bone and overall skeletal fragility. Diet sodas are even worse, since they contain chemical sweeteners linked to neurological disorders and learning disabilities.

16. Air fresheners
Air fresheners contain cancer-causing chemicals. Unleashing them in the house exposes children to these chemicals, promoting asthma and other respiratory problems. If you value the health of your children, avoid air freshener products and just use essential oils or citrus peels instead. (Peel an orange and hang the peel in your kitchen.)

17. Synthetic vitamins
Many children's vitamins are made with cheap, synthetic "vitamin" chemicals that actually harm people who take them. Plus, many are loaded up with artificial colors, sucrose and chemical sweeteners. Avoid cheap, store-bought children's vitamins or anything containing cyanocobalamin (a toxic form of vitamin B12). Quality children's vitamins are available through sources like Nordic Naturals (fish oils) and www.IntegratedHealth.com (also check www.WellnessResources.com for high-quality supplements).

18. Dryer sheets
Most popular dryer sheets and fabric softeners are made with toxic synthetic chemicals that are not safe to use on children's clothing. The fragrance chemicals alone are often highly carcinogenic, and the other chemicals contribute additional toxicity to the clothing. Children's clothes should never be washed or dried in chemicals. Only use natural detergents and fabric softeners, or avoid the fabric softeners altogether.

19. Bacon
Most bacon and sausage are processed meat products made with sodium nitrite (like the hot dogs, above) and contaminated with various chemicals lodged in the animal fats. Conventionally-raised beef, pork and chicken products are, in my opinion, extremely toxic to the human body and contribute to colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer and many other diseases and disorders. If you make meat for your children, shop for 100% organic, free-range, antibiotic-free meats that have no nitrites or nitrates.

20. Shampoo and bath products
Virtually all popular shampoo and bath products sold on the market contain cancer-causing chemicals. The ingredients read like a top-40 list of toxic chemicals. Virtually none of these chemicals have ever been tested or approved for use on humans (they are simply ignored because the FDA astonishingly believes the skin won't absorb chemicals). If you want healthy products, use the shampoo I recommend: Pure Essentials Fragrance-Free Shampoo from Earth Science (www.TheNewES.com)

Keeping your health priorities straight

So that's the list of 20 items that are more dangerous to the health of children than the lead paint in Mattel toys. Most parents have no concern whatsoever for any of these 20 things, but they're going ape-shoot-crazy over the tiny amounts of lead in their Barbie toys and Elmo stuffed animals. It all just goes to show you that the sheeple will think anything the mainstream media tells them to think (and they'll ignore everything else).

It's classic American contradiction: Returning a Mattel toy at the local toy store while taking your child to a dentist to have mercury implanted in the cavities caused by all the soda the kid consumed at home (because the parents keep buying Coke and Pepsi). If it all weren't so downright tragic, it would almost be funny.

Almost.

UB study: Tonsil removal and breast cancer

2007-04-24T13:55:30Z

Women who had their tonsils removed in childhood may be at increased risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer, according to University at Buffalo researchers.

Study leader Theodore Brasky said an apparent association may be related to the loss of protective function of the tonsils when they are removed.

Alternatively, tonsils that needed to be removed may have been markers for severe or chronic infections in childhood, and that such infections cause inflammation that may contribute to cancer, Brasky said.

]]> The study involved 740 women with breast cancer and 810 healthy controls. Researchers found a 50 percent increased risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer in women who had had a tonsillectomy versus pre-menopausal women who had not.

Previous studies have linked tonsillectomies with an increased risk of Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia and cancers of the breast and prostate.

While the recent finding supports evidence that childhood exposures influence the risk of breast cancer in adulthood, further research is warranted, Brasky noted.

The study results were reported at the 100th annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research in Los Angeles this week.

source Business First of Buffalo via The Cancer Blog

Abortion does not raise breast cancer risk

2007-04-24T13:53:37Z

Abortion and miscarriage do not raise the risk of breast cancer, according to a study published Monday by the US National Cancer Institute in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

The 10-year study, performed on a sample of 105,716 US participants, rejects prior studies that suggested a link between prematurely terminated pregnancies and breast cancer.

The subjects were nurses aged 29-46 at the start of the study. They answered questions every two years via anonymous questionnaire about their medical history, including whether they had abortions, miscarriages and breast cancer.

"Among this predominantly pre-menopausal population, neither induced nor spontaneous abortion was associated with the incidence of breast cancer," said the study's authors from Brigham and Women's hospital and Harvard Medical School in the northeastern state of Massachusetts.

]]> The data provides "further evidence of a lack of an important overall association between induced or spontaneous abortions and risk of breast cancer."

"We found no association between induced abortion and breast cancer incidence and a suggestion of an inverse association between spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and breast cancer during 10 years of follow up," the study said.

However, the inverse relationship -- women who had a miscarriage before age 20 showed a reduced risk of breast cancer -- was found in a small sampling of women and "thus, chance has to be considered as a possible explanation."

The conclusions of the study were similar to those of a 2003 panel convened by the National Cancer Institute which found no evidence linking abortion or miscarriage to higher breast cancer rates.

DNA Variations Tied to Prostate Cancer Risk

2007-04-24T13:32:10Z

Scientists have pinpointed a set of common variations in human DNA that signal a higher risk for prostate cancer in men who carry them. Some of these variations are more common in African-American men, which may help explain why prostate cancer rates are higher in African Americans than in men of other races.

The findings, published in 3 separate studies, may lead to genetic tests that will help identify those most at risk for the disease. The findings may also help unlock the biological mysteries behind prostate cancer, which could speed up the discovery of new treatments.

The 3 studies focus on DNA variations located on chromosome 8 in some men. The variations may be linked to as many as 68% of prostate cancer cases in African Americans, 60% in Japanese Americans, 46% in Latinos, 45% in native Hawaiians and 32% in whites, the authors of 1 of the studies calculate.

]]> That study was performed by a 26-member research team led by investigators from the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and from Harvard Medical School in Boston. A separate study was performed by researchers at the US National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, and a third was led by scientists at deCODE Genetics Inc., an Icelandic biotech company.

All the studies appear in the online edition of the journal Nature Genetics.

"Building on this finding we may be able to identify men at highest risk for prostate cancer, diagnose the disease earlier, and hopefully prevent it all together," says John Niederhuber, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in US men, other than skin cancer; in 2007 an estimated 218,890 men will be diagnosed with the disease and 27,050 men will die of it. A blood test for PSA (prostate-specific antigen, a substance made only by the prostate gland) can often find the disease early, but the test isn't always accurate. Some men with a normal PSA level may have cancer, and some men with a high PSA may have a different condition that isn't cancer.

To know for sure, men have to get a prostate biopsy, which is a potentially painful and expensive procedure. Doctors hope to find DNA variations that would help determine which men might need aggressive prostate cancer screening -- which could lead to biopsies -- because they have a high risk of developing the disease.

In the Nature Genetics studies, 8 variants were identified on chromosome 8, in a string of human DNA called the 8q24 region. Each variant was shown to help predict prostate cancer risk, with the predictive strength varying widely from 11% to 68% depending on race and other factors men inherit from their family.

Of the 8 variants, 6 were newly discovered, and 2 confirmed from earlier findings, the authors report. The 3 studies were based on genetic tests on thousands of men from many countries and backgrounds, with the Keck School of Medicine and Harvard Medical School research team looking at the largest group: more than 7,500 African-American, Japanese-American, native Hawaiian, Latino, and white men with and without prostate cancer.

The group from deCODE Genetics has been looking at prostate cancer markers on chromosome 8 for years, and expects to release a genetic screening test for the disease sometime in early 2008, says a company executive.

NCI's Niederhuber says the findings are important beyond their potential for new tests. The 8q24 region is nowhere near any known genes, so more work is needed to see if the heightened prostate cancer risk comes from the variant itself, or from other DNA segments along chromosome 8.

Inherited DNA changes are known to contribute to about 5% to 10% of all cases of the disease.

Citation: 'Multiple regions within 8q24 independently affect risk for prostate cancer.' Published online April 1, 2007, in Nature Genetics. First author: Christopher A. Haiman, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles.

Citation: 'Genome-wide association study of prostate cancer identifies a second risk locus at 8q24.' Published online April 1, 2007, in Nature Genetics. First author: Meredith Yeager, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Maryland.

Citation: 'Genome-wide association study identifies a second prostate cancer susceptibility variant at 8q24.' Published online April 1,2007, in Nature Genetics. First author: Julius Gudmundsson, deCODE Genetics, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Hi-tech breast cancer weapon

2007-03-08T20:44:21Z

CUTTING-edge technology to improve breast cancer detection rates by 30 per cent will be rolled out across the state under a package announced yesterday.

The $26 million hi-tech breast screening process will boost cancer discovery rates by introducing digital intelligence to replace standard X-ray films.

The 21st-century system is particularly useful for picking up breast cancers in younger women, whose breast tissue is usually too dense to be filmed accurately by the old machines.

Breast cancer expert Dr Wendy Vincent said the new equipment would provide instant images for both patient and doctor and would be invaluable in regional NSW.

]]> "Previously we had to wait to develop the films, but the digital technology is instantaneous," she said.

"The images can be stored and transported electronically (so) this is of particular advantage to women in rural areas."

A landmark 2005 study of 50,000 women in the US published in the New England Journal of Medicine found the modern mammography machines picked up between 15 and 28 per cent more breast cancers in women younger than 50, those who had not yet gone through menopause and those with dense breasts.

Dr Vincent said the retro machines worked on film imagery, so if a specialist needed to zoom in on an image the patient was asked to come back in for another screen.

With computerised technology an image can zoom in from the original shot, cutting down on radiation exposure and saving time for doctor and patient.

"They will bring our best surgeons to the bedside of women in the state's most isolated rural outposts – all within a click of a mouse," Premier Morris Iemma said yesterday when announcing the plan.

The upgrade was part of an election announcement by Mr Iemma, who said a Labor Government would also establish a Women's Cancer Health Register to send out SMS and email reminders to patients.

A one-stop screening shop was announced for both healthy women and symptomatic and breast cancer patients.

The free screening system will now be extended to high-risk women between 30 and 40 who are genetically predisposed to breast cancer.

More Gene Mutations Drive Cancer Than Previously Thought

2007-03-08T20:38:40Z

Scientists surveying the human genome have found that many more gene mutations drive the development of cancer than previously thought.

The survey is reported in the journal Nature.

In the largest survey of its kind, an international team comprising over 60 scientists from the UK, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Belgium, USA and Australia, working for the Cancer Genome Project, examined more than 500 genes and 200 cancers and sequenced more than 250 million letters of DNA code.

They found about 120 new genes that drive the development of cancer cells.]]> All cancers are thought to be caused by gene mutations. Genes control the behaviour of cells, for example they tell them when to divide and when to die; thus abnormal genes either issue faulty instructions or the correct instructions at the wrong time or both, which leads to abnormal cell development and cancer.

Michael Stratton from the Wellcome Trust's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK, and one of the survey team leaders said "This is a lot more cancer genes than we expected to find."

The survey also discovered that two types of gene mutation are involved in cancer: driver and passenger. The driver mutations are thought to drive the rampant cell growth that causes cancer, while the passenger ones, which exist in much larger numbers, just go along for the ride.

Of the 1,000 cancer-specific mutations found, the team believes that about 150 of them are driver genes.

It is not easy to spot the difference between a driver and passenger gene, something this survey suggests will pose a great challenge for scientists.

Dr Andy Futreal, co-leader of the Cancer Genome Project explained "It turns out that most mutations in cancers are passengers."

"However, buried amongst them are much larger numbers of driver mutations than was previously anticipated. This suggests that many more genes contribute to cancer development than was thought," he added.

The types of genes that Futreal and his colleagues investigated are known as kinase genes. They have been linked with cancer development before. These protein genes act like relays, switching different types of cell behaviour on and off.

One example of a kinase gene is the BRAF, which an earlier study showed to be mutated in 60 per cent of malignant melanomas. This led to the development of new drugs, now in clinical trials, to treat melanoma.

This broader survey covered a wider range of the more common types of cancer, including breast, lung, colorectal and stomach cancers.

The researchers also found that a particular group of kinase genes "involved in the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor signalling pathway was hit much more than we expected, particularly in colorectal cancers," said Dr Futreal.

The survey also showed that buried inside each mutation are important coded messages, and that the type of mutation varied widely between different cancer types. This suggests that in some cases the process of mutation begins decades before the cancer presents itself.

It is as though gene mutations are "archeological sites" where written inside the DNA of each cell is a historical coded pattern that reveals the original cause of the cancer. In some cases the code can be deciphered, for instance damage from UV radiation or sunlight, or carcinogens in tobacco smoke, but in other cases the code is too hard to crack, which means more research effort is needed to unravel their mysteries.

"This study vindicates all of the effort that went into the Human Genome Project," said Dr Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, the largest independent charity in the UK and the second largest medical research charity in the world, and the sponsors of the survey.

"Understanding the mutations that cause cancer is crucial in order to develop accurately targeted treatments," added Dr Walport.

"Patterns of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes."
Christopher Greenman, Philip Stephens, Raffaella Smith, Gillian L. Dalgliesh, Christopher Hunter, Graham Bignell, Helen Davies, Jon Teague, Adam Butler, Claire Stevens, Sarah Edkins, Sarah O'Meara, Imre Vastrik, Esther E. Schmidt, Tim Avis, Syd Barthorpe, Gurpreet Bhamra, Gemma Buck, Bhudipa Choudhury, Jody Clements, Jennifer Cole, Ed Dicks, Simon Forbes, Kris Gray, Kelly Halliday, Rachel Harrison, Katy Hills, Jon Hinton, Andy Jenkinson, David Jones, Andy Menzies, Tatiana Mironenko, Janet Perry, Keiran Raine, Dave Richardson, Rebecca Shepherd, Alexandra Small, Calli Tofts, Jennifer Varian, Tony Webb, Sofie West, Sara Widaa, Andy Yates, Daniel P. Cahill, David N. Louis, Peter Goldstraw, Andrew G. Nicholson, Francis Brasseur, Leendert Looijenga, Barbara L. Weber, Yoke-Eng Chiew, Anna deFazio, Mel F. Greaves, Anthony R. Green, Peter Campbell, Ewan Birney, Douglas F. Easton, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Min-Han Tan, Sok Kean Khoo, Bin Tean Teh, Siu Tsan Yuen, Suet Yi Leung, Richard Wooster, P. Andrew Futreal and Michael R. Stratton.

Nature 446, 153-158 (8 March 2007)
doi:10.1038/nature05610

source

Gene that prevents cancer also controls the skin's suntanning machinery

2007-03-08T19:39:59Z

A gene that prevents cancer also controls the skin's suntanning machinery, researchers report in the March 9, 2007 issue of the journal Cell.

"The p53 tumor suppressor is commonly mutated in human cancer," explained David Fisher, director of the Melanoma Program in Medical Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "Now, we've found that it plays a role in the skin's tanning response."

The researchers also linked the p53-driven process to other instances of skin darkening not associated with the sun

]]> It is the most superficial cells in skin that react to sun exposure, Fisher said. When those "keratinocytes" are exposed to the sun, they produce melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH), triggering other cells to manufacture the skin-bronzing pigment.

Variation in tanning ability stems from differences in the MSH receptor, Fisher said. For example, the receptor variant found in redheads doesn't respond to MSH, leaving them unable to tan.

However, researchers hadn't identified the factors ultimately responsible for the tanning hormone's production.

MSH is one product of a larger gene sequence that also encodes the natural morphine-like substance, called beta-endorphin, Fisher added. While MSH drives the suntan response, beta-endorphin is believed to drive sun-seeking behavior.

Fisher's team showed that mice require p53 in order to switch on genes that produce MSH and tan. Similarly, the induction of beta-endorphin by the sun also depends on p53.

"The induction of beta-endorphin appears to be hard-wired to the tanning pathway," Fisher said. "This might explain addictive behaviors associated with sun-seeking or the use of tanning salons."

The researchers observed similar events in human skin to those seen in the mice. They also found evidence implicating p53 in other forms of abnormal skin pigmentation that can result as a side effect of certain drugs or other stresses.

"Certain drugs are probably inadvertently activating p53 and, with it, the sun-tanning pathway," Fisher speculated. "We might now be able to find ways to interfere with this process to prevent it from occurring."

By the same token, a more complete understanding of the suntan process could lead to products that can produce a tan safely without exposure to potentially damaging UV radiation-even in those people who otherwise don't tan. Fisher said he is involved in a small biotechnology company that is working to develop such a product.

Radiation for breast cancer ups heart disease risk

2007-03-07T11:56:59Z

As a treatment for breast cancer, radiation, even modern regimens, appears to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, according to a report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute for March 7.

Earlier reports have indicated that radiotherapy regimens used in the 1970s elevate heart disease risk, but it has been less clear if more recent regimens also increase the risk.

Apart from the "clear benefits" of radiotherapy, doctors should still be aware of the potentially increased risk of cardiovascular disease following specific radiotherapy regimens in long-term breast cancer survivors, Dr. Flora E. van Leeuwen, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, and colleagues note in the report.

]]> They evaluated 4,414 women with breast cancer who survived for 10 years after receiving radiation treatment between 1970 and 1986. The rates of cardiovascular disease in these women were compared with those seen in the general population.

A total of 942 cardiovascular events were logged during a median follow-up period of 18 years.

According to the results, radiation that was limited to the breast did not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Inclusion of the surrounding breast tissue, however, did increase the risk.

Radiation to the breast and surrounding tissue performed in the 1970s appeared to increase the risk of heart attack and heart failure by 2.55- and 1.72-fold, respectively, compared with no radiation.

By contrast, radiotherapy in the 1980s did not raise the risk of heart attack, but was associated with 2.66- and 3.17-fold increased risks of heart failure and heart valve dysfunction, respectively.

In the 1980s, adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy increased the risk of congestive heart failure by 1.85-fold. Moreover, a 3-fold increased risk of heart attack was seen in radiotherapy-treated patients who also smoked.

In a related editorial, Dr. Sharon H. Giordano and Dr. Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, comment that the study "provides important new information on the cardiac toxicity of radiation therapy."

They also praise the study's methodology, calling the 18-year follow-up period "impressively long" and citing certain unique features, including evaluation of both morbidity and mortality, and comparison of toxicity by radiation fields.

SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, March 7, 2007.

Panel nixes aspirin as cancer preventive

2007-03-07T11:51:19Z

People at average risk for colon cancer shouldn't take aspirin or painkillers like ibuprofen to try to prevent the disease, a federal task force advises, because of the risk of bleeding and other potential health problems.

The recommendation for the first time by the US Preventive Services Task Force includes those with a family history of colorectal cancer.

The panel said that potential risks of taking more than 300 milligrams a day of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen and naproxen - brand names include Motrin, Advil and Aleve - include a higher risk for stroke, intestinal bleeding or kidney failure.

]]> Those risks outweigh the potential benefits of preventing cancer, the task force said in Tuesday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. The task force said that while there is good evidence that low doses of aspirin, usually less than 100 milligrams, can reduce the risk of heart disease, it does not lower the rate of colon cancer.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in men and women and is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, killing about 56,000 people each year. About 150,000 new cases are diagnosed annually.

Most of those diagnosed are over the age of 50, and 20 percent have a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt or uncle with the disease. Blacks have the highest rate of colorectal cancer of any group.

In 2002, the Preventive Services Task Force recommended that people age 50 and older be screened for colon cancer.

Previous studies had suggested that a daily baby aspirin could prevent precancerous polyps that sometimes become colorectal cancer. But later research showed low-dose aspirin did little good at actually preventing cancer.

Dr. Raymond DuBois, director of the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Tennessee, said he believes the task force's latest advice is reasonable.

"I think for the general population, the risk of either having some gastrointestinal bleeding from aspirin or cardiovascular side effect from some of these other medications ... probably outweighs their use for colon cancer," he said.

source - AP

Breast Cancer Research Increasingly Influenced By Drug Industry

2007-03-01T15:01:08Z

Breast cancer treatment trials supported by the pharmaceutical industry are more likely to report positive results than non-sponsored studies, according to a study to be published in the April 1, 2007 issue of CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society. In addition, there are significant differences in the design of trials and types of questions addressed by pharmaceutical industry sponsored trials compared to non-sponsored trials. The study is the first to examine the impact of the pharmaceutical industry on breast cancer research.

Research and development (R&D) is critical to developing new therapies. The drug industry is a significant contributor to this effort, now with far greater spending than the United States' National Institutes of Health. As collaboration between the for-profit drug industry and academic medical centers has increased, so too have concerns over the potential impact of for-profit sponsorship on the nature and quality of the research and the potential for conflicts of interest. Several studies in other areas of medicine have suggested that pharmaceutical sponsorship leads to a greater chance that a clinical trial will yield positive results. The importance of this association for patients and researchers and the prevalence of this finding in cancer research are not yet clear.]]> Currently, half of all pharmaceutical-sponsored drugs in the pipeline target cancer. Breast cancer affects over 1 million women worldwide annually, making treatment R&D in this area important for public health and potentially lucrative if an effective drug is developed. Jeffrey Peppercorn, M.D., M.P.H. of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and his colleagues investigated the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and published breast cancer therapy research. The authors reviewed 140 studies reporting breast cancer therapy results over the past decade in select journals at 5 year intervals.

They found that of the 140 studies, 67 (48 percent) reported some form of drug company involvement through co-authorship, supply of drug, or financial support. Drug company participation increased from 44 percent in 1993 to 58 percent in 2003.

Most importantly, they identified statistically significant differences between studies supported by pharmaceutical studies and those that did not. Studies with pharmaceutical support or participation were more likely to report positive results, favoring the experimental therapy. These studies also were significantly more likely to use "single arm" designs - that is, a study whose patients get the same treatment with no control group to compare efficacy. Drug company sponsored trials also tend to target patients with advanced disease. While these types of studies are important for identifying new effective drugs, they may not answer questions about optimal dosing, duration and identification of patients who may have better or worse outcomes on treatment - important clinical factors for treatment guidelines.

"The impact of the growing pharmaceutical industry involvement in breast cancer clinical research appears similar to the impact of industry sponsorship documented in other fields of medical research," conclude the authors. This relationship "may yield better therapies for treatment of breast cancer, but at the same time focus research on some clinical problems while neglecting others," caution the authors.

Article: "Association Between Pharmaceutical Involvement and Outcomes in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials," Jeffrey Peppercorn, Emily Blood, Eric Winer, Ann Partridge, CANCER; Published Online: February 26, 2007 (DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22528); Print Issue Date: April 1, 2007.

source Medical News Today

Vitamin A may reduce stomach cancer risk

2007-02-27T14:03:21Z

High intakes of vitamin A apparently reduce the risk of developing gastric cancer, Swedish researchers report.

Vitamin A comes pre-formed, as retinol in foods of animal origin, or in precursor form, as carotenoids in fruits and vegetables, Dr. Susanna C. Larsson, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues explain in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Vitamin A may influence the development of stomach cancer through its role in controlling cell proliferation, the researchers write. "However, epidemiologic studies of vitamin A, retinol (preformed vitamin A), and provitamin A carotenoids in relation to the risk of gastric cancer have documented inconsistent results."

]]> The researchers examined the records of 82,000 Swedish adults who had completed a food-frequency questionnaire in 1997 and were followed through June 2005.

The average follow-up was 7 years. During that time, a total of 139 cases of gastric cancer were diagnosed.

A significantly lower likelihood of developing gastric cancer was seen with high intakes of dietary and total vitamin A and retinol, and of alpha-carotene and beta-carotene. Compared with the lowest intakes, the highest consumption of these compounds was associated with about a 50 percent reduction in the risk of gastric cancer.

Smoking affected how strongly vitamin A protected against stomach cancer, but alcohol drinking appeared to make no difference.

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, February 2007.