Flaxseed Lignans Prevent Breast Cancers
Flaxseed Lignans Prevent Breast Cancers April 20, 2003
Flaxseed may protect postmenopausal women against breast cancer, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Minnesota, the American Chemical Society reports this week.
According to the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Joanne Slavin at the Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, their recent study is believed to be the first to show that flax may be protective against breast cancer in humans.
Slavin and her associates studied 28 postmenopausal nuns in a convent in central Minnesota, chosen primarily because of their strict dietary practices. The volunteers were given daily dietary supplements of either zero, five or ten grams of ground flaxseed for seven week cycles over the course of a year.
Consumption of five or ten grams of flax significantly decreased blood levels of certain types of estrogen that are characteristic of postmenopausal women. Since previous studies have shown that increased levels of these estrogens (estrone sulfate and estradiol) may increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer, reducing levels of these hormones is thought to be protective against breast cancer, according to the researchers.
The exact mechanism by which flaxseed exerts its effect is not known. Flaxseed is considered the most concentrated food source of lignan, a type of plant hormone that is structurally similar to estrogen. Lignan may lower estrogen in humans by inhibiting enzymes that are involved in estrogen synthesis, Slavin says.
Although Slavin believes that lignans are likely the most active chemical component of flax affecting hormone levels, she adds that other components are also thought to lower the cancer risk, including omega-3 fatty acids and soluble fibre. Further studies are needed to determine whether these or an undetermined chemical contributes to the beneficial effects of flax and to determine the chemical mechanisms underlying this effect, she says.
Flaxseed comes from the flax plant and its seeds are ground into a powder and used to make breads and cereals. It is also sold as an oil.
Dr. Slavin was keen to stress that further research was required in order to thoroughly examine the effect that flaxseed may have of reducing breast cancer in postmenopausal women.
FDA Conflicts of Interests Perpetuated and Expanded in New Stealth Funding Bill
FDA Conflicts of Interests Perpetuated and Expanded in New Stealth Funding Bill
The Longevity News has exposed and described the egregious and continuing conflicts of interests at the Federal Food and Drug Administration, where most drug review committees actually have members financially connected to the drug companies whose products they are approving. We have also described how the FDA is a revolving door as FDA bureaucrats one day become highly paid drug company exectives the next and vice versa. Now, the recent Bioterrorism Bill has made this conduct all the more egregious.
The Food and Drug Administration is at it again. It has recently become dependent on the multibillion-dollar drug industry that it’s supposed to be policing. With virtually no public debate, Congress has passed a law that dramatically increases the FDA’s dependence on large drug companies for its funding. It’s an expansion of a law passed in 1992 intended to speed up the approval process for new AIDS medications.
But this time the emergency was of a different sort. The FDA was running out of money to keep its new employees. Going before Congress and asking for more money amidst a war on terrorism was going to be a tough fight. And the drug companies offered an easier solution.
Negotiate a deal in secret, attach it to the widely popular bioterrorism bill, and the drug companies would pay for the FDA’s new employees and more.
The FDA and the drug companies are getting awfully cozy… The details of discussions leading to this “”solution”" were never made public. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the program was created in private meetings between the industry and the FDA. It was never debated or voted on in either chamber before going to the negotiators. And it’s moving forward before a General Accounting Office review of the current program can be finished and made public.
According to the Post, the user fees from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies would add almost 500 employees to the FDA centers that review proposed new drugs. That would bring the FDA workforce funded by the drug industry to at least 1530. And that would constitute more than 55 percent of the FDA staff involved in reviewing drug applications.
“”What was the price of the FDA sellout? $1.2 billion over the next five years.
The report that’s due from the GAO is supposed to tell us how well the public has faired under the current smaller program of drug company support for the FDA’s drug approval process. But the truth probably won’t come out:
Over the last 10 years, the FDA has approved nine drugs that proved to have deadly side effects.
The Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that 125,000 Americans die each year from the side effects of FDA approved drugs.
The FDA approved the sale of Baycol (later found to cause fatal rhabdomyolysis) and continues to approve the use of other “”statin drugs”" to lower cholesterol that are also associated with this deadly side effect.
Beefed up by drug company funds, the FDA has aggressively suppressed natural alternatives to drugs. Red yeast rice, for example, known to be a safe and effective alternative to cholesterol-lowering drugs, was banned by the FDA in 2001.
The next time you are offered a drug, ask questions. Why do I have to take it? If I take it, what’s the plan to get me back off? Are there alternatives? What are the side effects?
Vitamin E & Alzheimer’s
Treatment of Alzheimer’s Mayo Clinic, December 4, 2001 Scientists and nutritionists have long recognized the importance of vitamins in a healthy diet. Now there is growing research into the role of vitamins in treating certain diseases, such as Alzheimer’s. Vitamin E is called an antioxidant because of its role in countering oxidation
WHO Warns of Possible Influenza Pandemic
When Influenza Takes Flight By HANS TROEDSSON and ANTON RYCHENER
February 5, 2005
Hanoi, Vietnam
IP6: A Powerful New Cancer-Fighter
IP6: A Powerful New Cancer-Fighter CBN Reports, October 20, 1998
You’ve probably never heard of a substance called IP6, but you may have heard of antioxidants. Their job is to scavenge rogue molecules in the body. IP6 is a powerful antioxidant that may help prevent kidney stones and fight viruses, cancer, and even aging. CBN News medical reporter Gailon Totheroh files this exclusive report.
This natural molecule, IP6, has reduced cancer growth in two dozen different animal studies.
“”We have no studies like this with drugs or with other anti-cancer agents that are as remarkable as this one molecule,”" says medical journalist Bill Sardi.
As seen in this model, one key to IP6’s power is six phosphate groups arrayed around a base of the B vitamin inositol. And remember that IP6 has other names: inositol hexaphosphoric acid and phytic acid.
Cancer researcher Abul Kalam Shamsuddin says that IP6 fights many kinds of cancer. “”On cancer of the colon, prostate, breast, leukemias, lymphomas, fibrosarcomas, muscle tumors, and Dr. Sakomoto from Japan has tested on brain tumors.”"
Other animal research shows action against liver cancer and lung tumors. Shamsuddin’s financial interest needs to be noted: he has a paperback out on IP6 and rights to the only IP6 food supplement available.
But IP6 is not that easily dismissed; dozens of reputable scientists are looking into IP6, including many who spoke at the first world symposium on IP6 in June. One aspect that makes IP6 unique is that, unlike money, it actually grows on trees.
“”And IP6 is in almost every species that’s been tested. It’s in the plants.”" Shamsuddin says the research warrants human studies on cancer prevention and treatment. “”It’s long overdue,”" he says. “”We have had numerous other drugs that we know of, with much less scientific data.”"
CBN News asked the American Cancer Society about IP6. Officials there were not familiar with IP6, but were quite interested in learning more about this substance.
The National Cancer Institute has shown interest in IP6 by publishing an article in a 1992 cancer prevention volume and a 1995 article in the journal Cancer Research.
While funding for human research with IP6 is scarce, IP6, also called phytic acid, is plentiful in whole grains, beans, nuts, and seeds. The author of Phytic Acid: Chemistry and Applications, scientist Ernst Graf told CBN News that he personally eats lots of whole grains.
Shamsuddin adds that the most benefit comes from the IP6 concentrate used both in the laboratory and in the supplement he designed. And Ivana Vucenik, Shamsuddin’s colleague at the University of Maryland, finds IP6 quite safe, especially compared to most cancer-fighting agents.
“”The animals did not show any kind of negative side effects, any kind of toxicity, they looked normal, and their body weight was normal,”" says Vucenik.
Vucenik is impressed with evidence of IP6’s disease-fighting ability. “”Anything that can boost our immune system is benefiting the patient’s health,”" says Vucenik. “”And so this is exactly what IP6 can do.”"
And that has to do with boosting natural killer cells. These cells attack viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. Vucenik finds that IP6 is also active against heart and circulatory disease.
“”IP6 can inhibit aggregation of human platelets,”" says Vucenik. “”That is why it has great potential in preventing cardiovascular disorders.”"
This clumping of blood cells contributes to heart attacks and strokes. And because IP6 scavenges iron out of the body, tens of millions of older people could possibly benefit. Excess iron in their bodies speeds up aging and cell damage.
“”If you take a dish of cells, and you have a salt shaker of iron, and you pour it on those cells, then they’ll die quite readily,”" says Sardi. “”A lot of wise cancer patients are moving ahead and starting to take IP6 on their own.”"
But the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute advise caution until further research ends the controversy.
SupplementSpot offers a purified IP6 at a rock bottom price. Click on the following links for further information:
Probiotics
Probiotics to ease gut problems in autistic young May 5, 2004 Probiotics could play an important role in helping autistic children by tackling the neurotoxins and bacteria in the gut which can cause the condition, according to new research, writes Chris Jones.
Findings from a team led by Professor Glenn Gibson, Professor of Food Microbiology and head of the Food Microbiology Sciences Unit at the University of Reading, were released earlier this week.
“We have good evidence to show that children with autism have a gut flora which produces toxins, and that neurotoxins and bacteria in the gut are producing this metabolite,” said Professor Gibson.
His research team, screening stool samples from 150 autistic children in the US, found a very high prevalence of the harmful bacteria, clostridia. A second research programme examining the gut flora of 60 British autistic children also revealed high levels of clostridia, which were not present in their non-autistic brothers and sisters.
“We are now screening several strains of probiotic bacteria to see which will intervene against these clostridia. Human trials will start later this year using the probiotic which performs best,” said Professor Gibson.
Catherine Collins, chief dietitian at the department of nutrition and dietetics at St. George
PSA Test
PSA Test a Thing of the Past? MONDAY, May 10 (HealthDayNews) — The PSA test, long the gold standard for deciding who should have a biopsy for prostate cancer, may have outlived its usefulness for the most part.
Stanford University researchers say PSA (prostate specific antigen) levels bear little relationship to the severity of a cancer these days. They presented their finding May 9 at the American Urology Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco.
“”We need to recognize that PSA is no longer a marker for prostate cancer,”" said study author Dr. Thomas A. Stamey, a professor of urology at Stanford University School of Medicine. “”We urgently need to find a new marker for prostate cancer, and that marker must be proportional to how much cancer you have.”"
“”We have been so thorough and effective in screening for prostate cancer over this 20-year period that PSA no longer has a relationship to prostate cancer,”" Stamey said. “”Because we all develop the cancer, we’re now removing prostates from men whose cancer is so small that they do not need the procedure. We’re finding all these little cancers that are never going to be a danger to the patient.”"
“”In smaller cancers, the PSA test is not relevant anymore,”" Stamey explained. “”You might as well biopsy a man because he has blue eyes.”"
PSA is a protein produced by the cells of the prostate gland. Because blood levels of the antigen tend to rise as the gland enlarges, it has been used for years as a test of whether a person needs a biopsy for cancer. The test, however, is not foolproof.
“”People’s perceptions [are] that if your PSA is a certain level, you’re very likely or you do have prostate cancer, and that is incorrect,”" said Dr. Mark Soloway, chairman of the department of urology at the University of Miami School of Medicine.
“”The PSA test is a very good test. It’s not a perfect test, especially in younger men,”" added Dr. Jay Brooks, chief of hematology/oncology at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans.
To see how the efficacy of the PSA test might have waned, researchers in Stamey’s lab reexamined every prostate that had been removed since 1983 (1,317 of them) and compared the size of the cancer with blood PSA levels. None of the cancers had been treated with chemotherapy, radiation, or hormones before surgery.
Each cancer was rated on eight or 10 different parameters thought to indicate how aggressive the cancer was, including the size of the tumor and its grade.
Stamey then divided the samples into four five-year periods to see what had happened to the qualities of the cancers over time.
“”What we showed was that in the first five years, the cancers were related to the level of serum PSA,”" Stamey said. “”Then in the next five years, they were still bad but not as bad as the first five years. Then in the third five-year period, they were better and better. And in the last five years ending Jan. 1 of this year, the cancers were so small they had no relationship to serum PSA.”"
Twenty years ago, 80 percent of cancers were detected by digital rectal examination; only 20 percent of cancers are now detected that way, Stamey explained.
Instead, PSA levels today are driven by benign enlargement of the prostate, a condition that does not usually require surgery.
The concept that the PSA test is not foolproof is not an entirely new one. “”The point is well taken that in microscopic disease, the volume of cancer is clearly overshadowed by the volume of noncancer, so that the cancer cannot be the cause of the elevated PSA,”" said Dr. John Phillips, physician-in-charge of urologic oncology at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City.
The question now is what can replace it. “”People are trying to find other ways of finding cancer,”" Phillips added.
As a matter of fact, University of Pittsburgh researchers who presented at the same conference reported that additional testing for a protein called early prostate cancer antigen (EPCA) might mean prostate cancer could be detected as many as five years earlier than with just the PSA test.
“”We would like a perfect test that would only find biologically significant cancers,”" Soloway said. “”Today we can’t distinguish between those with indolent cancer and those whose cancers threaten their life. We need another way. That’s going to be a difficult task.”"
In the meantime, the American Urological Association issued a statement that, for the time being, the PSA test in combination with a digital rectal exam and a full medical history is the best way to determine when a biopsy might be necessary
HCA and Chromium Picolinate
A Non-Prescription Alternative in Weight Reduction Therapy by Anthony A. Come, M.D. Editor
Apple Pectin Helps Prevent Colon Cancers
Apples may help ward off colon cancer March 18, 2008
Apple pectin and polyphenol-rich apple juice have an anticarcinogenic effect on the colon, encouraging the production of suspected chemopreventative metabolite butyrate, say researchers. Butyrate is a short chain fatty acid (SCFA) that has been found to be a major factor contributing to healthy colon mucosa. The study, published in the April issue of Nutrition, looked at human faecal matter fermented with apple constituents and found a significantly increased yield of SCFA, most notably butyrate. “”Butyrate not only serves as a major nutrient for the colon epithelia but is also thought to play an important role in the protective effect of natural fibre against colorectal cancer,”" said the German research team, led by Dieter Schrenk. This is the not the first study to find benefits of fruits in cancer prevention and treatment. A recent study in California found low doses of freeze-dried grape powder could inhibit the development of colorectal cancer thanks to the polyphenol resveratrol and synergistic effects between the grape compounds. The study Faecal slurry from healthy individuals was fermented with apple constituents, such as apple pectin and apple juice extracts that were high in polyphenols. The samples that were fermented with pectin were rich in butyrate and the scientists concluded that this assisted in colon health because of its effect on histone deacetylases (HDAC). When the butyrate content was high, HDAC was inhibited. With slower production of HDAC, there would be significantly less growth of precancerous and tumour cells. Fermentations with pectin were very active in HDAC inhibition in nuclear extracts prepared from the colon tumour cell lines HT-29 and Caco-2 and in intact HeLa Mad 38 cells bearing a reporter gene driven by HDAC inhibition. Faecal slurry fermented with apple juice extracts showed lower butyrate yields but comparable HDAC inhibition. Combined incubations of pectin with apple juice extracts resulted in effects similar to those with pectin as the only substrate added. The researchers concluded that butyerate is the most relevant HDAC inhibitor formed in fermentations of human faecal slurry with apple pectin, whereas addition of apple juice extracts leads to the formation of butyrate and other HDAC inhibitors, which are as yet unknown. The study presents some sound findings to act as a base for further study into colon cancer prevention, which is the third most prolific type of cancer in western industrialised countries, causing 650,000 deaths a year. Sources Nutrition April 2008, 366-374, doi:10.1016/j.nut.2007.12.013 “”Histone-deacetylase inhibition and butyrate formation: Fecal slurry incubations with apple pectin and apple juice extracts”" Authors: Markus Waldecker, Tanja Kautenburger, Heike Daumann, Selveraju Veeriah, Frank Will, Helmut Dietrich, Beactrice Louise Pool-Zobel and Dieter Schrenk
The Case for Smallpox Vaccinations
The Case for Voluntary Smallpox Vaccination The former Soviet Union developed variola virus, which causes smallpox, for use as a biologic weapon, and supplies may have fallen into other hands. As Lev Sandakhchiyev, the director of Russia’s Vektor Institute, has warned, “”All you need is a sick fanatic to get to a populated place.”"1 U.S. experts agree.2,3 The benefits of preemptive, voluntary vaccination are great. One immediate outcome is deterrence. Vaccination before exposure dramatically reduces the value of smallpox as a weapon; in the case of an attack, the number of unimmunized persons will be greatly reduced, and the outbreak will be much easier to manage. The United States is the most likely target of bioterrorism, and preexposure vaccination in this country reduces the risk of secondary exposure elsewhere in the world. A survey has shown that 61 percent of Americans would want to be vaccinated if smallpox vaccine were available, and the public thus appears to be ready for this approach.4 The risk of an attack involving variola virus is impossible to quantify, but the vulnerability of the U.S. population is evident. The 119 million U.S. residents born after the program of mass vaccination was terminated in 1972 lack immunity. Moreover, the immunity of the 157 million U.S. residents who were born earlier is waning and therefore uncertain. The federal government recognizes the risk and has ordered the production of sufficient supplies of vaccine to immunize the entire U.S. population.5 The responsibility for deciding how to administer vaccine rests with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC currently recommends postexposure “”ring vaccination,”" an approach that requires rapid identification and quarantine of exposed persons, with immunization of their contacts and the contacts’ contacts.6 Ring vaccination is an effective strategy for the eradication of small, localized outbreaks in a population with widespread immunity. In a largely nonimmune and highly mobile population, however, epidemic control after multiple simultaneous exposures is a vastly different challenge. The CDC’s strategy of postexposure ring vaccination is predicated on certain assumptions that merit scrutiny. One assumption is that smallpox makes patients so visibly sick that infected persons can be identified and quarantined within the four-day period after exposure during which vaccination may be effective.2,3 Smallpox is “”most contagious during the preeruptive period by aerosol droplets from oropharyngeal lesions.”"7 A person may be infective for several days before smallpox is clinically obvious.8 Infected terrorists could expose people in several cities (and on public transportation between cities) before becoming visibly ill. Identifying such cases of exposure within the four-day period is logistically impossible. Furthermore, aerosolized dispersion of the virus could make the situation much worse. The CDC strategy also appears to be based on the assumption that each infected person will infect only two or three others: “”Our data suggest that the lowest rate (2 persons infected per infectious person) is the most accurate representation of previous transmission rates.”"9 But in the Yugoslav and German smallpox outbreaks in the 1970s, for each case of infection, the number of infected contacts ranged from 11 to 38.8 A single case of smallpox in the Yugoslav outbreak required the administration of 18 million doses of vaccine to arrest the spread of disease in a population with substantial immunity.10 Moreover, the deliberate exposure of a population to smallpox introduces multiplicative factors with effects that are unforeseeable. Finally, the logistic complexity of administering millions of vaccine doses in a crisis is daunting. An epidemic is highly likely to outrun the vaccinators. Effective enforcement of quarantine is also difficult.11 Official reassurances followed by further uncontrolled outbreaks could provoke panic, flouting of authority, and even the breakdown of medical and public health services. In June 2001, the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies sponsored a simulation exercise, called Dark Winter, in which experienced officials used a containment-after-exposure strategy in response to a smallpox attack.12 There was logistic havoc. It was attributed to the unclear and conflicting authority of competing jurisdictions, a shortage of vaccine, weak information-sharing mechanisms, and inadequate crisis capacity in the health care system. Preexposure vaccination does not pose the logistic difficulties of vaccination during an outbreak and is less expensive. It also reduces the risk of infection among immunocompromised persons.10 The primary objection to voluntary preexposure vaccination is the risk of serious complications, but exposure of immunocompromised persons to vaccinia is much easier to control in a noncrisis setting than during an outbreak.3,10 An increased level of immunity in the population would reduce the overall risk of infection among immunocompromised persons in the event of an attack. In 1968, the last year for which we have data on mass vaccination, 14.2 million persons in the United States were vaccinated. Nine deaths resulted