Household Chemicals Cause Cancer, Birth Defects, Wide Range of Health Issues, WHO Study Admits

superadmin , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A new landmark study by the World Health Organization says a host of common, everyday household chemicals pose severe health problems including cancer, asthma, reduced fertility and even birth defects.

According to the study, WHO identified a number of “synthetic chemicals” which the UN agency said had “serious implications” for health, even going so far as to suggest that so-called “gender-bending” compounds found in PVC flooring, kids’ toys and even credit cards should be banned in order to protect future generations, recent reports detailing the findings said.

The study said more research was likely needed to flesh out the links between endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which are found in a number of household chemicals, and “specific diseases and disorders.”

‘Reasonable to suspect’ chemical substances are causing harm

WHO researchers said they have discovered links between EDCs and health issues including breast, prostate and thyroid cancers, testicular problems, developmental effects on children’s nervous systems, and attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity in kids.

Scientists at the UN agency also said it is “reasonable to suspect” chemical substances called phthalates of disrupting female fertility, and also linked the substances to rising rates of childhood diseases such as leukemia.

Researchers labeled the study the most “comprehensive” report on EDCs so far because it examined and evaluated several chemicals and related evidence rather than just focusing on a single element or compound. The study is titled, “State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.”

The findings also raised concerns over bispehnol A, a man-made compound found in many daily items such as tin cans and sunglasses. The substance is believed to interfere with the natural hormones that influence human development and growth.

WHO scientists also said there was “very strong evidence” in animals that the substances can interfere with thyroid hormones; that could lead to brain damage, loss of intelligence, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Regarding the incidence of prostate cancer, “significant evidence” exists that suggests a link with agricultural pesticides, according to a team of international medical experts which examined the data. The UN agency also said wildlife was at risk.

“The diverse systems affected by endocrine-disrupting chemicals likely include all hormonal systems and range from those controlling development and function of reproductive organs to the tissues and organs regulating metabolism and satiety,” the report said. “Effects on these systems can lead to obesity, infertility or reduced fertility, learning and memory difficulties, adult-onset diabetes or cardiovascular disease, as well as a variety of other diseases.”

The same report, published 10 years ago, found only “weak evidence” that said chemicals could affect human health.

“The latest science shows that communities across the globe are being exposed to EDCs, and their associated risks,” said Dr. Maria Neira, WHO’s Director for Public Health and Environment. She said the agency “will work with partners to establish research priorities to investigate links to EDCs and human health impacts in order to mitigate the risks,” adding: “We all have a responsibility to protect future generations.”

‘We urgently need more research’

The study backed similar warnings by the European Environment Agency that were issued last year, warning items like cosmetics and medicines containing EDCs could be harmful to human health.

Earlier, Natural News reported that EDCs identified in this study may have on the body’s hormone system may have “significant health implications” for humans. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

According to a UN press release, the report “calls for more research to understand fully the associations between endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) – found in many household and industrial products – and specific diseases and disorders.”

“We urgently need more research to obtain a fuller picture of the health and environment impacts of endocrine disruptors,” Neira said.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/039259_household_chemicals_cancer_birth_defects.html#ixzz2NW9HX2Vw 


Starves Cancer Cells Into Oblivion – Why Isn’t It Front-Page News?

superadmin

Could a ketogenic diet eventually be a “standard of care” drug-free treatment for cancer? Personally, I believe it’s absolutely crucial, for whatever type of cancer you’re trying to address, and hopefully some day it will be adopted as a first line of treatment.

A ketogenic diet calls for eliminating all but non-starchy vegetable carbohydrates, and replacing them with healthy fats and high-quality protein.

The premise is that since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates turn into glucose in your body, then lowering the glucose level in your blood though carb and protein restriction literally starves the cancer cells into oblivion. Additionally, low protein intake tends to minimize the mTOR pathway that accelerates cell proliferation.

This type of diet, in which you restrict all but non-starchy vegetable carbs and replace them with low to moderate amounts of high-quality protein and high amounts of beneficial fat, is what I recommend for everyone, whether you have cancer or not. It’s a diet that will help optimize your weight and all chronic degenerative disease. Eating this way will help you convert from carb burning mode to fat burning.

Dr. Thomas Seyfried is one of the leading pioneer academic researchers in promoting how to treat cancer nutritionally. He’s been teaching neurogenetics and neurochemistry as it relates to cancer treatment at Yale University and Boston College for the past 25 years.

He’s written over 150 peer-reviewed scientific articles and book chapters, and has also published a book, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer.

Sugar Is the Primary Fuel for Most Cancers

Controlling your blood-glucose leptin and insulin levels through diet, exercise and emotional stress relief can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program. These factors are also crucial in order to prevent cancer in the first place.In 1931, the Nobel Prize was awarded to German researcher Dr. Otto Warburg, who discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells, and that malignant tumors tend to feed on sugar. More recently, researchers discovered that while cancer cells feed on both glucose and fructose, pancreatic tumor cells use fructosespecifically to divide and proliferate.

Dr. Seyfried’s work confirms that sugar is the primary fuel for cancer, and that by restricting sugar and providing an alternate fuel, namely fat, you can dramatically reduce the rate of growth of cancer. He explains:

“When we’re dealing with glucose and [cancer] management, we know from a large number of studies that if respiration of the tumor is ineffective, in order to survive, the cells must use an alternative source of energy, which is fermentation. We know that glucose is the primary fuel for fermentation. Fermentation becomes a primary energy-generating process in the tumor cell. By targeting the fuel for that process, we then have the capability of potentially managing the disease.”

The strategy Dr. Seyfried suggests is a low-carb, low to moderate protein, high-fat diet, which will effectively lower your blood sugar. This is an easily measurable parameter that you can check using a diabetic blood glucose meter. This type of diet, called a ketogenic diet, will also elevate ketone bodies, as fat is metabolized to ketones that your body can burn in the absence of food. When combined with calorie restriction, the end result will put your body in a metabolic state that is inhospitable to cancer cells.

“[Ketones] is a fat breakdown product that can replace glucose as a major fuel for many of the organs and especially our brain,” he says.

Tumor cells, however, cannot use ketone bodies because of their respiratory insufficiency. So the ketogenic diet represents an elegant, non-toxic way to target and marginalize tumor cells. It also allows you to dramatically lower your glucose levels, as the ketones will protect your body against any hypoglycemia that might otherwise be induced by carb restriction.

“All of the newer cells in your body will be transitioned to these effective ketones, thereby preventing them from damage from hypoglycemia. At the same time, the tumor cells are now marginalized and under tremendous metabolic stress. It’s a whole body therapy—you need to bring the whole body into this metabolic state,” he explains.

“We like to call it a new state of metabolic homeostasis: a state where ketones have reached the steady state level in your blood and glucose has reached a steady lower level in your blood… If it’s done right and implemented right, it has powerful therapeutic benefits on the majority of people who suffer from various kinds of cancers. Because all cancers have primarily the same metabolic defect.”

The Potential Role of Protein in Cancer Formation

Glutamine–one of the most common amino acids found in proteins—is another interesting aspect of cancer that Dr. Seyfried is still investigating. In his opinion, most oncologists who do cancer metabolism recognize that sugar (both glucose and fructose) is the prime fuel for driving tumor growth. However, mounting research also indicates that glucose and glutamine together act powerfully and synergistically on the growth of tumor cells.

“These two fuels work together in concert to provide a continual growth,” he says.

One of my early mentors was Dr. Ron Rosedale. He taught me, about 20 years ago, about the importance of insulin control and then, more recently, about the importance of reducing protein intake, for this very reason. Most Americans likely eat far more protein than they really need, and this excess could be a factor in cancer. The Paleo approach makes sense on many levels, especially with regards to intermittent fasting and lowering your glucose levels. The Paleo approach is very clear about reducing grains and any food that raises your blood sugar. But there are, of course, two other macronutrients left: fat and protein.

Many Paleo followers are overly concerned about getting high amounts of protein, which could increase your glutamine and branched chained amino acid levels, which in turn tend to activate mTOR. In some, that could be problematic. According to Dr. Rosedale’s research, the pathway known as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), is controlled by lowering your protein intake. This pathway may be another metabolic pathway that helps control and prevent cancer growth.

To read Dr. Mercola’s full article, click here. You will also be able to listen to Dr. Mercola’s full interview with Dr. Seyfried.


Angelina Jolie’s Double Mastectomy: A Lifesaving Move… or a Big Mistake?

superadmin , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Angelina Effect—Don’t Be Swayed…

Within days of her “coming out,” Jolie again graced the cover of TIME magazine with the words: “The Angelina Effect—Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy puts genetic testing in the spotlight. What her choice reveals about calculating risk, cost, and peace of mind.”

I have no special insights about what this woman has been thinking, but I certainly don’t blame her. To me she is merely a victim of sophisticated and clever techniques that have successfully twisted common sense on its head. She has learned to trust and believe in the system that has created this insanity. The PR campaign that catalyzed her decision is clearly aimed at deceiving naïve and preoccupied people into an utterly flawed system motivated primarily by corporate greed not by any compassion or desire to decrease human suffering.

I don’t fault Jolie for any of it. She, like everyone else, made the best decision she could based on the information she was given or sought out. Few people have enough time to study and understand the complexity of system that has evolved for over a century.

In this case, the goal is not to empower you to make proactive decisions about your health. It’s about herding you into the fold of the most profitable industries in the world. Myriad Genetics alone rakes in approximately half a billion dollars in revenue each year.19 Genetic testing for breast cancer accounts for 85 percent of their total revenue, and again, they have complete and total control of this niche since they own the patent for the BRCA genes. Salon magazine recently wrote an article titled “How One Company Controls Your Breast Cancer Choices:”

“Myriad’s monopoly over BRCA1 and BRCA2 not only means showing that it can charge whatever it wants for the test; it also means that further research on the genes is restricted, and that women who take the test and get an ambiguous result can’t get a second opinion, only take the test again. An ambiguous result can mean the difference between removing breasts or ovaries or leaving them intact.

The economic and racial implications of all this are major, both for how the research has been done and who gets access to it. In a video on the case, the ACLU points out, ‘Initial gene studies focused on white women. And now the patents make it more difficult to learn what some mutations mean in women of color, because Myriad has total control over researchers’ access to those mutations. … Myriad’s patent on the genes expires in two years, but the Supreme Court’s ruling21 will set the broader principle going forward. For now, Jolie’s Op-Ed has apparently made Myriad’s stock price rise 4 percent, its best level in years.’”

The Case Against BRCA Testing

In the research paper titled “The Case Against BRCA1 and 2 Testing”, published in the journal Surgery30 in June 2011, the four authors from the Department of Surgery, University of California explain what many oncologists don’t want to hear:

“BRCA 1 and 2 code nuclear proteins, also known as tumor suppressor genes, capable of repairing damaged DNA… Both mutations increase the lifetime risk of breast cancer in a woman. Less than 5% of women diagnosed with either ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive ductal cancer are a result of inherited BRCA genes…

But BRCA 1 and 2 may speak with many voices. Polymorphisms are naturally occurring single nucleotide variations of a gene present in more than 1% of the population. Polymorphisms and other single-nucleotide variants have been identified within the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes. Indeed, more than 500 mutations in BRCA 1 alone have been documented and most render their proteins inactive—so, some BRCA genes seem to be shooting blanks. And a single nucleotide polymorphism, albeit only a single nucleotide change, can have a formidable influence on protein expression.

Sequence variant S1613G, for instance, results in increased mutational risk of BRCA 1 neoplastic expression, whereas a variation in K1183R is related inversely to cancer risk. It seems that some polymorphisms may actually have aprotective effect.”

In summary, the authors state that for screening and therapeutic purposes, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genetic testing is really little more than an expensive way of “determining what can be accomplished more expeditiously by speaking with your patient,” since:

  • The DNA base pair sequence in all humans is 99.6% identical
  • Epigenetic factors influence substantively the RNA processing and translational requisition of the initial DNA message
  • There are thousands of sequence variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA 2 genes
  • Family history trumps BRCA 1 and 2 status

Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies

So in summary, it’s important to realize that even though many well-intentioned physicians and media will seek to convince you of the value of cancer screening, it does NOT in any way equate to cancer prevention. Although early detection is important, recently a number of very popular screening methods have been shown to cause more harm than good.

In terms of genetic testing, ask yourself what you would do with the information, should it turn out you’re a carrier of the breast cancer gene. Ideally, such a test result would spur you to take real prevention seriously. But even if you don’t have the mutation, lifestyle factors are still a much larger risk factor overall. Remember, the percentage of diagnosed breast cancer cases that have the mutated gene is in the low single digits. Something else, primarily your lifestyle, accounts for the remainder.

In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices. I believe these estimates are far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations below.

  • Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
  • Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I’m aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more. Remember that if you take high doses of oral vitamin D3 supplements, you also need to increase your vitamin K2 intake, as vitamin D increases the need for K2 to function properly. See my previous article What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium for more information.

 

To read Dr. Mercola’s full article, please click here. The article explores the topic in further detail, provides a more extensive list of breast cancer prevention strategies and has a few short videos on the topic.