New research from the U.S. National Institutes of Health shows that the biochemicals in green tea change a women’s estrogen metabolism, revealing at least one of its mechanisms for reducing the risk of breast cancer.
The study comes from the NIH’s National Cancer Institute, and was led by Dr. Barbara Fuhrman. The researchers tested the levels of urinary estrogens and metabolites among 181 healthy Japanese American women from California and Hawaii. Of the group, 72 of the women were postmenopausal. The remainder of the group was premenopausal.
The data was compiled using a combination of urinary testing along with personal interviews with each women. The woman’s intake of not only green tea, but black tea, coffee (decaffeinated or not) and soda (decaffeinated or not) was also queried and recorded and measured, and the results were adjusted with respect to caffeine consumption. Considerations such as soy consumption, body mass index, age and others were also made and adjusted.
NPR science correspondent and author of the new book,“Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions,” Richard Harris has shined a light on the many issues that plague the world of scientific research — and he’s exposed a dark industry secret: Many studies are actually totally worthless junk. According to Harris, thousands of breast cancer studies are totally useless because they were conducted using the wrong type of cells. Rather than using breast cancer cells, researchers had been using wrongly identified cells that were actually melanoma cancer cells — meaning thousands of papers had investigated and experimented with the wrong disease.
“It’s impossible to know how much this sloppy use of the wrong cells has set back research into breast cancer,” Harris stated. But breast cancer studies are not the only ones that are affected by this dilemma — virtually every area of scientific research is plagued by the malady of junk studies with findings that cannot be replicated. (more…)
It is no surprise that olive oil has been at the foundation of one of this world’s longest-existing cultures. Its health benefits are nearly unrivaled and now there is yet another good reason to incorporate extra virgin olive oil into your diet: reducing the risk of breast cancer. A recent study in Spain concludes that just four spoons of olive oil per day reduce the risk of suffering breast cancer by 66 percent.
That is exciting news in the war against cancer, where conventional medicine has been more focused on treatment instead of prevention, and the incidence of recurrence has been exhaustively high. There are many heart-healthy reasons to make olive oil a regular part of your daily diet. You can now add cancer-prevention to the list.
Discover how to protect your health against cancer and other diseases, naturally, with a subscription to the NaturalHealth365 INNER CIRCLE. Over 200 globally recognized integrative medical doctors, oncologists and naturopaths provide their best advice on halting chronic disease, slowing down the aging process and promoting optimal health. Click here to learn more.
Cutting cancer risk by two-thirds with extra virgin olive oil
The U.S. spends billions of dollars every year on cancer research, with breast cancer receiving the lion’s share of the funding. In fact, according to the National Cancer Institute, funding for breast cancer research in 2012 reached a staggering $602 million—twice as much as that allocated for lung cancer research.1
While some research on prevention measures exists, many of the studies on breast cancer focus on genetics, diagnosis and treatment—including novel drug/chemotherapy regimens, stem cell therapy and antibody and nanotechnology treatments.
However, doesn’t it make sense to do everything in your power to protect yourself from getting a horrible disease like cancer? Prevention is a whole lot easier than grueling treatments after diagnosis.
Fortunately, you don’t have to look far to find some of the best breast cancer preventives. In fact, most are probably already in your kitchen.
Even with the established evidence which supports the long-term health risks and danger of mammograms, the medical community still pushes them like pancakes. Besides overdiagnosis and the unnecessary treatment of insignificant cancers, mammograms cause radiation-induced breast cancer themselves, increasing several risk factors for the disease.
Diagnosis of cancers that would otherwise never have caused symptoms or death in a woman’s lifetime can expose a woman to the immediate risks of therapy (surgical deformity or toxicities from radiation therapy, hormone therapy, or chemotherapy), late sequelae (lymphedema), and late effects of therapeutic radiation (new cancers, scarring, or cardiac toxicity). Although the specific plan of oncologists is usually to recommend tailored treatments according to tumor characteristics, there is still no reliable way to distinguish which cancer would never progress in an individual patient; and consequently treatments are lumped into the “treat all just in case” just in case category.
A recently released Finnish study suggests a potential link between the use of hair dyes and breast cancer.
In the U.S., breast cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Each year, about 230,000 new cases are diagnosed in this country. It’s a huge issue around the world as well, with 1.7 million women worldwide receiving breast cancer diagnoses in 2012 alone.
Hair dyes have long been rumored to possibly cause various forms of cancer, including breast. Even so, prohibited substances, such as aromatic amines, can still be found in many hair dyes. And remnants of these chemicals can be detected in breast cells of hair dye users.
In the current study, researchers administered questionnaires to 6,567 breast cancer patients diagnosed between 2000-2007. They also recruited 21,598 controls.
They determined that the odds of breast cancer increased by 23 percent among women who used hair dyes, as compared to those who did not. And women born before the year 1950 had 28 percent higher risk. They also determined that risk is cumulative—meaning it “adds up” over time.
The researchers wrote, “Our results suggest that use of hair dyes is associated with breast cancer incidence. The impact on public health may be substantial due to vast popularity of hair coloring in modern societies.” They further stated that the “lack of external safety assessment within the cosmetics industry is of major concern.”
Heikkinen S, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Aug 11;10(8):e0135190.
Whether you call it soybeans or edamame, the bottom line is the same: soy should not be consumed by anyone pursuing good health. By now it’s well known that almost all soy is genetically modified, but what is not so well known is that instead of contributing to nutrition, soybeans and most of the products made from them actually rob the body of nutrients, destroy thyroid function, and cause developmental problems in infants and children.
In the late1990’s the FDA allowed the soybean industry to make a health claim about soybeans, and marketers jumped at the chance to capitalize on the event. Since then sales of soybeans have skyrocketed, and an amazing array of products made with soy has proliferated store shelves. But soy is not a health food, and now is the time to get off the soy bandwagon.
In their natural form, soybeans contain phytochemicals with highly negative effects on the human body. Three major anti-nutrients found in soy are phytates, enzyme inhibitors and goitrogens. All plants have some anti-nutrient properties, but the soybean is especially rich in these chemicals. If they aren’t removed by extensive preparation such as fermentation or soaking in the Chinese way of making natto, tempeh or miso, soybeans are one of the worst foods a person can eat. (more…)
A new study reveals just how profoundly misled we are about Bisphenol A and its analogs: they are at least 100x more toxic than we previously imagined.
An alarming new study establishes that the commonly used chemical bisphenol A used in tens of thousands of consumer products, and its lesser known but increasingly prevalent analogs, bisphenol S and F, are several orders of magnitude more disruptive to the endocrine systems of the developing male human fetus than previous toxicological risk assessments were capable of determining.
A new studywas just announced in mainstream media declaring the bra-cancer link does not exist. The study looked into the bra wearing habits of women ages 55 and older who had all worn bras since puberty. They concluded that women should be “reassured” that bras are not causing breast cancer.
Actually, this study supports the bra-cancer link, since all the women in the cancer group were bra wearers.
In addition, the study is useless since none of the women in the study were bra-free, so it lacks a proper control for examining bra wearing impacts. No bra-free baseline.
They also did not look at bra tightness, which is a major factor in the bra-cancer link, which is about tight bras causing lymphatic constriction.