Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez - If You Want To Fight Cancer, Turn Those Pink Ribbons Green

I'm going to make a confession. I never could stand those pink ribbons. I've never done a "Walk for the Cure" or bought daffodils for cancer victims or even picked a cancer-cure-themed postage stamp.

I'm glad to hear that the Komen Foundation has bowed to pressure and is restoring funding to Planned Parenthood, a worthwhile organization if there ever was one. But in general, the idea of putting the energy and effort of well-meaning citizens behind "the search for a cure for cancer" just irritates me, because let's face it, we know what causes cancer, and therefore we can do better than cure it, we can prevent it! Maybe not 100%, but we can take it back to the modest rates that previous generations of human beings enjoyed.

For my grandparents' generation, a diagnosis of cancer was frightening because it was so often a death sentence, but it was rare. Not one of my four grandparents came down with cancer, and I don't believe their parents did either. This isn't due to some genetic serendipity, it's just a fact that cancer rates in the first half of the 20th century (and every century before that) were way lower than they are now.

Read More:

http://countercurrents.org/hernandez060212.htm

Lifestyle blamed for 40 percent of cancers

Forty percent of cancers in women and 45 percent in men could be prevented by a healthier lifestyle, British researchers say.

A Cancer Research UK report found more than 100,000 cancers each year in Britain are caused by four lifestyle factors -- smoking, unhealthy diet, alcohol and being overweight -- and the number rises to around 134,000 a year when 14 lifestyle and environmental factors are taken into account, the Guardian reported.

The research showed that in Britain:

-- Smoking accounts for 23 percent of all cancers in men and 15.6 percent in women. It causes lung cancer as well as bladder, kidney, pancreatic and cervical cancer.

-- One-in-25 cancers is linked to work-related exposure to chemicals or asbestos, while one in 33 is linked to infections, such as the human papillomavirus, which causes most cases of cervical cancer.

Read More:

http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=12182&Section=Disease

Grape seed extract kills head and neck cancer cells, leaves healthy cells unharmed

Nearly 12,000 people will die of head and neck cancer in the United States this year and worldwide cases will exceed half a million.

A study published this week in the journal Carcinogenesisshows that in both cell lines and mouse models, grape seed extract (GSE) kills head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells, while leaving healthy cells unharmed.

“It’s a rather dramatic effect,” says Rajesh Agarwal, PhD, investigator at the University of Colorado Cancer Centerand professor at the Skaggs School of Pharmaceutical Sciences.

It depends in large part, says Agarwal, on a healthy cell’s ability to wait out damage.

Read More:

http://www.coloradocancerblogs.org/news/grape-seed-extract-kills-head-and-neck-cancer-cells-leaves-healthy-cells-unharmed

James Gallagher - Processed meat 'linked to pancreatic cancer'

A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden.

They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%.

But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.

The World Cancer Research Fund suggested the link may be down to obesity.

Eating red and processed meat has already been linked to bowel cancer. As a result the UK government recommended in 2011 that people eat no more than 70g a day.

Read More:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16526695

Chlorophyll Can Help Prevent Cancer -- But Study Raises Other Questions

A recent study at Oregon State University found that the chlorophyll in green vegetables offers protection against cancer when tested against the modest carcinogen exposure levels most likely to be found in the environment.

However, chlorophyll actually increases the number of tumors at very high carcinogen exposure levels.

Beyond confirming the value of chlorophyll, the research raises serious questions about whether traditional lab studies done with mice and high levels of toxic exposure are providing accurate answers to what is a real health risk, what isn't, and what dietary or pharmaceutical approaches are useful.

The findings, published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, were done using 12,360 rainbow trout as laboratory models, instead of more common laboratory mice. Rodent studies are much more expensive, forcing the use of fewer specimens and higher carcinogen exposures.

Read More:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112142303.htm

Ken Kaye and Brittany Wallman - Cancer concerns mount over TSA body scanners

Airport body scanners like those used in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando may pose a significant cancer threat, particularly to those over age 65 and women genetically at risk of breast cancer, some medical experts warn.

Because the scanners' lose dose of radiation penetrates just below skin level, it could imperil the lens of the eye, the thyroid and a woman's breasts, said Dr. Edward Dauer, head of radiology at Florida Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale.

"I think it's potentially a real danger to the public," he said, noting that even a small dose could be risky for people predisposed to cancer. "This is an additional exposure."

The Transportation Security Administration insists the scanners are safe and cites independent studies, saying the radiation levels are far below acceptable limits. Still, a growing chorus of scientists and doctors say that even a small dose of radiation could pose unnecessary danger.

Read More:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-12-25/news/fl-tsa-scanner-concern-20111223_1_body-scanners-backscatter-machines-millimeter-wave-scanners

Red meat lovers have more kidney cancer

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who eat lots of red meat may have a higher risk of some types of kidney cancer, suggests a large U.S. study.

Researchers found that middle-aged adults who ate the most red meat were 19 percent more likely to be diagnosed with kidney cancer than those who ate the least. A higher intake of chemicals found in grilled or barbecued meat was also linked to increased risk of the disease, they reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

"Red meat is an important source for iron (and) it has protein," said Dr. Mohammed El-Faramawi, an epidemiologist from the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth, who has studied diet and kidney cancer risks but wasn't involved in the new study.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_120221.html (*this news item will not be available after 03/27/2012)

John LaForge - CT Scans as a Leading Cause of Breast Cancer?

December 26, 2011

by JOHN LaFORGE

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/26/the-leading-cause-of-breast-cancer/

Profiteers in the medical CT scan business took a big hit last week from a major new government report on the causes of breast cancer.

Published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the exhaustive analysis found that medical radiation, particularly the large radiation dose delivered by CT scans, is the foremost identifiable cause of breast cancer.[1]

Almost 230,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year in the United States, and about 40,000 women will die of the disease, roughly one out of every 3,875 women.

The new Institute of Medicine report probably doesn’t sit well with the industry, hospitals and clinics that make so many millions of dollars selling and over-using CT machines. The authors suggest that women avoid “unnecessary” or “inappropriate” medical radiation, a thinly veiled criticism of the industry that will give you a CT scan for a tooth ache if you don’t object to it.

In 1980, there were 3 million CT scans performed in this country. The number rose to 62 million in 2006,[2] to about 70 million by 2007,[3] and, according to NBC, to 72 million this year.[4] It’s a growth industry that doesn’t care if it promotes tumor growth.

Click to read more ...

Penn State University - Fish oil may hold key to leukemia cure

22-Dec-2011

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/ps-fom122211.phpPenn State

Penn State University

A compound produced from fish oil that appears to target leukemia stem cells could lead to a cure for the disease, according to Penn State researchers. The compound -- delta-12-protaglandin J3, or D12-PGJ3 -- targeted and killed the stem cells of chronic myelogenous leukemia, or CML, in mice, said Sandeep Prabhu, associate professor of immunology and molecular toxicology in the Department of Veterinary and Medical Sciences. The compound is produced from EPA -- Eicosapentaenoic Acid -- an Omega-3 fatty acid found in fish and in fish oil, he said.

"Research in the past on fatty acids has shown the health benefits of fatty acids on cardiovascular system and brain development, particularly in infants, but we have shown that some metabolites of Omega-3 have the ability to selectively kill the leukemia-causing stem cells in mice," said Prabhu. "The important thing is that the mice were completely cured of leukemia with no relapse."

The researchers, who released their findings in the current issue of Blood, said the compound kills cancer-causing stem cells in the mice's spleen and bone marrow. Specifically, it activates a gene -- p53 -- in the leukemia stem cell that programs the cell's own death. "p53 is a tumor suppressor gene that regulates the response to DNA damage and maintains genomic stability," Prabhu said.

Click to read more ...

Medical News Today - New Study Supports Claim That Breast Screening May Be Causing More Harm Than Good

Medical News Today, 11 Dec 2011   

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/238936.php

A new study published on bmj.com supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening in the UK may have caused more harm than good. 

Harms included false positives (abnormal results that turn out to be normal) and overtreatment (treatment of harmless cancers that would never have caused symptoms or death during a patient's lifetime). This may be because the cancer grows so slowly that the patient dies of other causes before it produces symptoms, or the cancer remains dormant or regresses. 

It shows that the harms of screening largely offset the benefits up to 10 years, after which the benefits accumulate, but by much less than predicted when screening was first started. 

The Forrest report in 1986, which led to the introduction of breast cancer screening in the UK, estimated the number of screened and unscreened women surviving each year over a 15-year period. Costs and benefits were measured in quality adjusted life years or QALYs (a combined measure of quantity and quality of life) but it omitted harms. 

It suggested that screening would reduce the death rate from breast cancer by almost one third with few harms and at low cost. 

Since the Forrest report, the harms of breast cancer screening have been acknowledged. So, researchers at the University of Southampton set out to update the report's survival estimates by combining the benefits and harms of screening in one single measure. 

The results are based on 100,000 women aged 50 and over surviving by year up to 20 years after entry to the screening programme. 

Inclusion of false positives and unnecessary surgery reduced the benefits of screening by about half. The best estimates generated negative net QALYs for up to eight years after screening and minimal gains after 10 years. 

After 20 years, net QALYs accumulate, but by much less than predicted by the Forrest report. 

The authors say more research is needed on the extent of unnecessary treatment and its impact on quality of life. They also call for improved ways of identifying those most likely to benefit from surgery and for measuring the levels and duration of the harms from surgery. From a public perspective, the meaning and implications of overdiagnosis and overtreatment need to be much better explained and communicated to any woman considering screening, they add. 

However, the continuing uncertainty surrounding the extent of overtreatment is apparent in a study of French women published on bmj.com last month, which put overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to screening at around 1%.