Breast Cancer is affecting so many people these days. What we’re eating, drinking and breathing is so impoortant!

Watch this video: http://apps.facebook.com/thepinkribbon/invite.php

By Michael Smith, North American Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: April 21, 2009
Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

DENVER, April 21 — A couple of handfuls of walnuts a day could prevent breast cancer, a researcher said here.
Action Points

* Explain to interested patients that this study looked at the effect of walnuts in the diet of mice that were genetically engineered to develop breast cancer.

* Add that the study found a clear benefit, but caution that more research is needed before the results can be applied to humans.

* Note that this study was published as an abstract and presented at a conference. These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The finding comes from studies in transgenic mice, but should also apply to people, according to Elaine Hardman, Ph.D., of Marshall University School of Medicine in Huntington, W.Va.

“It is clear that walnuts contribute to a healthy diet that can reduce breast cancer,” Dr. Hardman said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“I think any time (to eat walnuts) could be beneficial, even after diagnosis,” Dr. Hardman told reporters.

In the study she’s reporting here, mice engineered to be susceptible to breast cancer were fed small amounts of walnuts in their diet and were compared to similar animals that didn’t get the nuts.

At the age of six months, 100% of these animals usually have cancer, she said, but the incidence of malignancy was reduced by half in the animals who got the walnuts.

At the same time, in mice that got cancer anyway, the rate of growth of the tumor was reduced by 50%, compared with the growth rate of tumors in the control animals, she said.

In an earlier study — in which tumors were implanted in mice — the results were similar in terms of growth rate, she said.

In the current study, the time to the appearance of the first tumor was three weeks slower for the walnut-fed animals than it was for the control mice.

That’s about a 15% delay, she said. In women, that would translate to about a nine-year delay.

The mice were fed about four-tenths of a gram of walnuts a day, which for people would be about two ounces a day — or two handfuls, Dr. Hardman said.

But Dr. Hardman’s suggestion that humans eat more walnuts is going too far, according to Peter Shields, M.D., of Washington’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Such a leap is “outrageous” without more study, Dr. Shields said.

“We gave beta-carotene supplements to people based on animal and some [preliminary] human studies suggesting they reduce lung cancer,” he said.

“When we did the study in humans, smokers given beta-carotene got more lung cancer,” he said.

Dr. Shields was referring to pivotal studies, conducted in the 1990s, of the effects of beta-carotene supplements on some 29,000 male smokers in Finland. They found that, compared with patients taking a placebo, those who consumed a daily beta-carotene supplement had a 18% higher rate of lung cancer.

Dr. Hardman’s work, he said, “is a nice study that calls for more research. There needs to be a lot more understood” about how walnuts might prevent breast tumors.

“It might be worth it for epidemiologists to look at people,” he added.

The value — or risk — of various foods is a common theme at this meeting. In other research:

* Scientists at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health said eating well done and very well done meat may be associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. A preference for very well done steak was associated with a 95% increase in the risk of the disease, although the hazard ratio just missed statistical significance.
* For people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a habit of drinking wine in the years before diagnosis may reduce the risk of death and relapse, according to researchers at Yale School of Public Health. The scientists said the finding may be controversial and needs to be replicated, but wine drinkers had 76% five-year survival compared with 68% of non-wine drinkers, while disease-free survival was 70% and 65% respectively.

The researchers did not report support or conflicts.

Primary source: American Association for Cancer Research
Source reference:
Ion G, et al “Walnut consumption decreases mammary gland tumor incidence, multiplicity and growth in the C(3)1Tag transgenic mouse” AACR 2009; Abstract LB-247.

About 6,000 middle-aged or older women in the UK develop cancer each year because they are obese or overweight, a Cancer Research UK-funded study says.

The study, which looked at 45,000 cases of cancer in 1m women over seven years, says this is about 5% of such cases.

It is published online by the British Medical Journal and blames excess fat for 50% of cases of womb cancer and a type of esophageal cancer.

Last week an international study warned of the link between cancer and weight.

‘Bigger impact’

The World Cancer Research Fund warned that carrying excess weight significantly increased the risk of cancer.

Figures indicate that about 23% of all women in England are obese and 34% are overweight.

The latest study looked at how often cancers occurred in 1.2m UK women aged 50 to 64 over a seven year period. More than 45,000 cases of cancer and 17,000 cancer deaths occurred during that time.

Lead researcher Dr Gillian Reeves, from Oxford University, said: “We estimate that being overweight or obese accounts for around 6,000 out of a total 120,000 new cases of cancer each year among middle-aged and older women in the UK.

“Our research also shows that being overweight has a much bigger impact on the risk of some cancers than others.

“Two thirds of the additional 6,000 cancers each year due to overweight or obesity would be cancers of the womb or breast.”

Age difference

The research found that the link between weight and risk of cancer depended on a woman’s stage of life.

For example, being overweight increases the risk of breast cancer only after the menopause and the risk of bowel cancer only before the menopause.

Sara Hiom, from Cancer Research UK, said: “This research adds to the evidence regarding the impact of being overweight or obese on developing cancer and dying from the disease.

“While most people readily associate carrying extra weight with being a general health risk, many do not make a specific link with cancer.”

Dr Ian Campbell, medical director of the charity Weight Concern, said: “Whereas it was once thought there was little one could do to prevent cancer, it’s now clear that lifestyle impacts greatly on overall cancer risk.

“The message is clear. Invest in a healthier lifestyle today and we can reap the benefits of reduced disease risk and longer life tomorrow.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7079799.stm

(Guy Rhodes/Sun-Times News Group)

The risk of breast cancer doubled for post-menopausal women who were on a once-popular combination hormone therapy for at least five years, according to a new analysis of the landmark study that established a clear link between hormone use and breast cancer.

The use of combined hormone therapy — estrogen plus progestin — in the United States plummeted after results from the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative trial were published. This was followed by a decrease in breast-cancer rates a year later.

The risk of breast cancer doubled for women who took the post-menopausal hormone therapy of estrogen plus progestin for at least five years.

But there was still some question as to why: Was it the hormone therapy, or was it changes in mammography, or something else?

“This is very strong evidence that estrogen plus progestin causes breast cancer,” said Dr. Marcia Stefanick, a Stanford University professor of medicine who is co-author of the new study, reported in today’s New England Journal of Medicine.

The new study also found that breast-cancer risk dropped sharply within two years of stopping combined hormone therapy.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 15,000 women involved in the original trial, which was stopped early after increases in heart disease, stroke and breast cancer risks were found.

It is a known fact that our environment and the toxins in it affect our health. So many people with cancer today have no family history of the disease. How are so many getting sick?

We need to take better care of our health and that means changing some of our bad habits. We need to be more aware of toxins in our home and how they affect our bodies! Our cleaning products, personal products, even our clothing could be making us sick! The chemicals, pesticides, hormones and poisons in our foods contribute to toxicity, obesity and diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

To find some healthy and natural alternative products, please visit:

http://ShopToEarth.net/DebbieMormino

Not long ago, obesity was seen mainly as a cosmetic problem. The purpose of dieting was to improve your appearance, especially in time for bathing-suit season. Exercise was a way to tighten bulges around the stomach and thighs. As a last resort, there were diet doctors, although they were regarded with suspicion — even within the medical community — for popularizing fad diets and preying on people’s vanity.

In just the last few years, however, the medical view of overweight, or excess body fat, has undergone a sea change. No longer just a cosmetic problem, it is now known to be a public health problem of the same magnitude as smoking. Indeed, government statistics list overweight as the second-leading cause of preventable death in the United States, after smoking. By increasing the risk for a variety of serious diseases — for example, heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, and several forms of cancer — overweight and its more severe form, obesity, cause 280,000–325,000 deaths in this country each year. For many people, losing weight is not an act of vanity; it’s a struggle for survival.

The dangers of excess weight have come to light at a time when the rates of overweight and obesity are soaring. More than half of all adults in the United States are overweight, and 26% are obese — an increase of more than 50% in the last three decades. Obesity rates are rising dramatically among children, too, an ominous sign for the future health of our population.

SUNDAY, Jan. 25 (HealthDay News) — If you want to learn more about the key risk factors for breast cancer, such as obesity, pollutants or smoking, a database can guide you to the available evidence that confirms or quells an association.

“Breast cancer is multifactorial. It would be rare for there to be a single environmental chemical that alone would be sufficient to cause an increase in breast cancer,” said Dr. Robert Schneider, co-director of breast cancer research at New York University School of Medicine in New York City.

“In many cases, an increased risk of breast cancer is quite small, and we don’t yet know how each factor affects the risk of breast cancer,” he said, explaining that it’s similar to a puzzle. “We need to know how all of the pieces fit together, and this database begins to help us start assessing some of that.”

The database, a joint project of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Environmental Factors and Breast Cancer Science Review project led by the Silent Spring Institute, includes information on 216 chemicals, diet, smoking, physical activity and weight that may play a role in the development of breast cancer.

Fewer than 100 chemical compounds have been identified as human carcinogens by the International Agency of Research on Cancer. However, that doesn’t mean that all other chemicals are safe, just that they haven’t been tested. And, an estimated 80,000 chemicals have been registered for commercial use in the United States, according to the database study, which was published in a recent issue of the journal Cancer.

Although many factors have been associated with breast cancer, Schneider said his top three would include the chemical bisphenol A, radiation exposure from CT scans and delayed first pregnancy.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an estrogenic chemical found in many products made of polycarbonate plastic (clear, hard plastic), such as baby bottles, reusable water bottles, food storage containers, food cans and water supply pipes, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Although no human studies have confirmed an association with breast cancer, a study done in mice suggests there may be a link. However, the U.S Food and Drug Administration recently said the agency felt there were “adequate margins of safety” for the chemical in the amounts commonly consumed.

“We don’t know what constitutes an unacceptable level,” said Schneider who would prefer to err on the side of caution and limit BPA exposure, especially in infants and young girls.

Schneider said another concerning risk factor is the amount of radiation people are exposed to for routine health problems, particularly from CT scans.

Although the last risk factor from Schneider’s top three — delayed first pregnancy — isn’t one people are likely to change, he said it’s important to be aware of it. “In a modern society, it’s exceedingly difficult to have a pregnancy before 20 when it would be quite protective,” said Schneider.

Dr. Jay Brooks is chair of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. He said, “When you look at environmental and chemical risk factors, you have to remember that we live in a sea of chemicals, and those chemicals have made our lives so much nicer, and it’s hard to know exactly what each one does to an individual’s risk.

“I advise my patients to try to control the things you have good control over. Weight is a huge issue in breast cancer, as is the use of combined estrogen/progesterone after menopause,” he added.

Brooks said extra weight is a risk factor that many women underestimate, but being overweight clearly increases risk. And, he said, estrogen therapy alone used to ease menopausal symptoms doesn’t seem to increase risk the way the estrogen/progesterone combination does.

More information

To learn more about breast cancer risk factors, check the searchable database from the Silent Spring Institute.

Have you ever thought that your bra may be one of your worst enemies? In Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer’s book, Dressed to Kill, The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, there is compelling information that leads women to that stunning conclusion.

Is it really possible that this most popular under-garment could actually be responsible for breast cancer – at least to a certain degree? The scientific community acknowledges what is called, “culturogenic diseases, or in other words, diseases that are directly related to life-style factors. High-heeled shoes, smoking cigarettes, and a high-fat diet are examples of life-style diseases or creating health problems.

But who would have thought that bras could be causing women serious health challenges? Interestingly, in a study carried out between 1991 and 1993, the authors interviewed 4,700 women in five cities across the United States. Some of their findings were shocking, most of them were distressful and every one of them important to women’s breast health.

In their survey of women who had experienced breast cancer, 99 percents said they had worn their bras twelve hours or more per day. Women who wore a bra all day and to bed experienced a 600% increase of breast cancer than woman among the general population. Even more significant is a 125-fold (12,500%) increase of breast cancer among women who wore a bra 24/7 than a woman who didn’t wear a bra at all. This is a substantially higher risk than the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

After 2 years of studies, Singer and Grismaijer compiled their studies and sent them to experts such as the director of the National Cancer Institute, the national vice-president of the American Cancer Society, the executive director of the American Women’s Medical Association and even to the famed Dr. Samuel Epstein, to name just a few. Many of the recipients of this report were women leading large organizations for women’s health or prominent cancer organizations. The result?

Not one responded. Not even the women’s groups. None. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, whose best interests these organizations have at heart.

Are Singer and Grismaijer correct in their assumption that bras have a direct correlation to breast cancer? Their evidence is compelling enough that I take my bra off whenever possible – in appropriate places to be sure – and have also felt it important to share many of these statistics with female friends and business associates.

Perhaps the adage of the 1960’s to burn the bra wasn’t such a bad idea?

by William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

If you’re smart, choosing a doctor is a decision that you don’t take lightly. You ask for recommendations. You talk to friends. You check backgrounds. But in the end, your health and your life could really be in the hands of the one doctor who you don’t choose and will probably never even meet: your radiologist.

This is especially true, as it turns out, for women going for their mammograms. According to new research, the accuracy of those mammogram readings can vary WIDELY. (Another strike against an already dangerous test.) The research discovered inconsistencies even when a lump was present, leaving women open to false positive results or even missed diagnoses.

The team of researchers from Group Health, a non-profit health maintenance organization, found that the ability to accurately detect cancer varied from 27 percent to 100 percent amongst the 123 radiologists studied. On average, 21 percent of breast cancers were missed entirely and 4.3 percent of women underwent a needless biopsy.

Those are frightening and deadly figures. For a killer such as breast cancer to be so poorly diagnosed, you have to wonder how many women were doomed by this level of neglect and ineptitude. Here’s another frightening figure: There will be an estimated 178,000 new cases of breast cancer, and 40,000 deaths caused by this scourge.

It just reinforces the sad reality that in today’s healthcare system, you can’t trust anyone. It’s not enough for you to stay on top of routine check-ups-you need to check out the doctors that are checking you out.

Keeping an eye on your breasts for all the right reasons,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.