natural girls
Comments
-
bdaniel,
Here is what the Sloan-Kettering Integrative Medicine Center says about herbal and natural remedies:
Herbal and homeopathic products and other similar remedies such as Ayurvedic and traditional Chinese medicines etc., cannot be identified as to their content (no federal standards exist and adulteration and misbranding are concerns). Because they are not classified as drugs by the FDA, these products cannot be administered to patients at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center except in Institutional Review Board approved protocols (clinical trials).
In addition healthcare providers should always inquire and document the use of complementary therapies with all patients. On admission or during perioperative assessment, patients identified as using complementary therapies should be advised about this policy. The concerns about safety and effectiveness should be explained and patients are to be asked to comply with this policy.
I think the main concern is that these items are not regulated in the same way drugs are and so potency and purity can vary considerably. And when you are taking concentrated amounts, there may be an issue of interactions between the different supplements.
There's a great Web source at the Sloan-Kettering site where you can look up individual herbs and vitamins. Here's some of what I could find about the supplements you listed:
COQ12 - Case reports describing efficacy for breast cancer exist, but no controlled clinical trials have been performed. Use of CoQ10 to prevent anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy requires additional research.
CoQ10 is structurally similar to vitamin K and therefore may antagonize the effects of warfarin. It may also antagonize the effects of chemotherapy via antioxidant activity and may reduce the effect of radiation therapy.
Turmeric - Recent animal studies indicate that dietary turmeric may inhibit the antitumor action of chemotherapeutic agents such as cyclophosphamide in treating breast cancer
Red yeast rice - Tests of several preparations of red rice yeast revealed that many contained citrinin, a toxic fermentation byproduct. Adverse events include stomachache, heartburn, dizziness and flatulence. Lovastatin has been associated with muscle pain, tenderness and weakness, which theoretically may occur with red yeast rice. Persons with liver disease, pregnant women and persons under the age of eighteen should not use red yeast rice. A case of anaphylaxis in a 26-year-old man working with red yeast rice has also been reported.
Gingko - Ginkgo use is associated with adverse effects and it can also interact with prescription medications. Ginkgo supplementation for dementia may increase risk of stroke. Patients should use caution before taking Ginkgo supplements.
Cayenne - Derived from the fruit of Capsicum. Cayenne is among the most widely consumed culinary spice. Traditionally, it is used topically as a rubefacient, as a gargle for laryngitis and orally as a gastrointestinal stimulant. The active component is an irritant capsaicin which has been used in scientific studies to evaluate pain sensation. Adverse effect of topical administration is burning following contact with moist mucous membranes. Phytochemical extracts of capsicum have been shown to exhibit more antioxidant activity than broccoli, carrot or spinach. Limited studies have evaluated oral supplementation with capsicum for burning mouth syndrome, however, significant side effects were found. In vitro studies have shown that capsaicin may have cytotoxic action against multidrug resistant lymphoma and oral tumor cell lines and may inhibit leukemia cell growth. Topical capsaicin may alleviate oral mucositis pain associated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Capsaicin cream has been shown to be effective in reducing post-surgical pain in cancer patients as well as for treating psoriasis and pruritus. A systematic review of clinical trials suggests that capsicum may be effective in treating low back pain. Use of gloves is recommended when applying topically. Toxicities following overdoses from oral include gastroenteritis and renal damage. There are reports of erythematous dermatitis formed in infants subsequent to breast-feeding from mothers who had ingested food flavored with red pepper. Administration of even a single dose of capsicum may interfere with theophylline metabolism.
black cohosh - In vitro studies show black cohosh decreases prostate cancer cell proliferation and induces an apoptotic response in liver cells. However, it also increased the incidence of metastatic disease in mice. Black cohosh increases disease-free survival in breast cancer patients. Whether black cohosh has estrogenic activity is debatable. Patients with hormone-sensitive diseases should use black cohosh with caution.
Black cohosh may inhibit CYP3A4 and can interact with medications that are substrates of this enzyme.
Several cases of hepatic failure have been reported from use of black cohosh. Black cohosh was shown to increase the toxicity of chemotherapy drugs, including doxorubicin and docetaxel in vitro.
Me again: If you want to see the actual references and full entries, you can access this resource at:
http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/11570.cfm
When I was in chemotherapy, my onc had me stop a number of supplements because, she said, there was not enough evidence about whether they might interfere with the drugs I was given. I think many doctors are suspicious of all complementary remedies, and many are uninformed, but when it comes to your health, I don't think you (and I mean the general "you," not you specifically, bdaniel) should assume that ALL doctors are wrong when they express concern about the supplements you are taking.
Janet
0 -
Sorry, folks. The formatting went all crazy when I posted that long list.
Janet
0 -
Janet,
Yes that is the main reason MD's can't advise alternative supplements is that there are no governig "FDA" verifications of accurate quality of potency or purity of the supplement. My oncologist told me the exact same thing.
thanks for the info
there are some supplements which are reviewed by consumer reports to have the ingredients as stated on the label. CoQ10 is one that I have researched by consumer reports.
Also "Health Nutz", is a brand tested 3 times before going on the market for validity of ingredients. It is rather expensive though...... below is an insert from my local paper
http://www.thesnaponline.com/aroundthecounty/local_story_301115308.html
"QUOTE":
The Health Nutz brand is made with only American ingredients (nothing from another country) made by an American company and is third party tested, which means the American company is tested by another facility to ensure what they are putting into their products is exactly what they say.If anyone knows of good quality brands...please post.
right now I am using the "Spring Valley" coq10 brand. I have tried other brands...but this has been the best quality and price for me. Spring valley has been tested by consumer reports. but I didn't see the specific milligram that I use as being tested....
Amber
0 -
After researching CoQ10 I found that the product needed to be made from fermented yeast and I went with a product that uses CoQ10 from Kaneka corporation. Here are some links and you can find what brands use their ingredients.
http://www.kanekaq10.com/k10p_dietarysupp.htm
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/aug2006_report_coq10_01.htm
Thanks for all the great information ladies!
0 -
Do any of you who are ER+/PR+ take Black Cohosh for symptoms of menopause?
And what do you know about Grape Seed Complex as an antioxident and BC?Any info helpful....
Spring.
PS I found and am now taking the Green Tea supplements!
0 -
Lots to think about here.........
Breast Cancer the Real Diet Connection
by Mary Mutarelli
Ever since my breast cancer diagnosis in 1999, I have been trying to figure out two things: why I got this disease, and why the incidence of breast cancer has been doubling every 25 years.
For decades, the media and the medical community have been telling us that it is our ‘fatty diet' that is causing this phenomenon, despite the fact that The Nurses' Health Study, the largest study ever to analyze the role of lifestyle in the development of disease, found no greater cancer incidence between the group with the highest percentile of fat consumption (>49%) and the lowest percentile (<20%). Interestingly, the study did find a correlation between obesity and a higher incidence of breast cancer for only for post-menopausal women.
I thought, perhaps, there would be a variance between vegetarians and meat-eaters, or those who ate vegetables and fruits and those who didn?t, or for the consumption of dairy products, but the study could find no significant difference in the incidence of breast cancer based on these criteria.
Since this study failed to produce any answers, I spent several years searching conventional medicine, alternative medicine, and scientific literature. I found many possible causes, and many theories, but nothing that could begin to explain the astronomical increase in the incidence of breast cancer that had taken place since my grandmother?s time. It did not seem possible that the genes of so many families could have undergone such mutation, in two or three generations, as to account for this epidemic! There were many factors that could be instrumental, but they did not apply in all cases. There was no common denominator, and this was disturbing to me, because I was nearing the end of my five-year treatment, and not one of my doctors had been able to tell me why I had gotten this disease, or to offer any guarantee that it would not recur.
In the course of my research on alternative medicine, I had discovered a nutritional supplement called indole-3 carbinol, a substance contained in cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts. According to numerous in vitro studies, and some animal studies, I-3 C is capable of metabolizing estradiol (the strongest form of estrogen) to a harmless form, 2-hydroxyestrone. I had decided to take this supplement after finishing Tamoxifen.
However, in the meantime, the medical community had begun to regard breast cancer as a chronic disease rather than a curable disease, and oncologists were now recommending total estrogen blockade for the rest of a woman?s life through the use of aromatase inhibitors. A recent clinical trial had demonstrated an improved, disease-free survival rate for patients who followed the five years of Tamoxifen with Femara (93% vs. 87% at the nine-year mark).
Although these drugs do not carry the risk of blood clots, as Tamoxifen does, there are other undesirable effects: elevated cholesterol, osteoporosis, increased risk of cardiovascular events, hot flashes, and joint and muscle pain. Osteoporosis was a very definite risk, since I only weighed 115 lbs., and a study presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference showed an average of 12% bone loss in a two-year clinical trial. I was not at all confident that oral bisphosphonates, such as Actonel or Fosomax, could compensate for that amount, since they are not well absorbed, even on an empty stomach. (The maximum absorption is 10%).
Despite the risks, my oncologist was trying to persuade me to continue treatment, but I refused, not only because of the side effects of the medication, but because it was important, to me, to be able to tell myself that I was cured, and I could not do that while seeing an oncologist and taking a cancer medication.
My husband found an old book at a yard sale, called ?Breast Cancer, A Nutritional Approach,? written by a famous nutritionist, from my mother?s generation, Dr. Carlton Fredericks. At the time it was published in 1977, (Grosset & Dunlap), the incidence of breast cancer was one in 15, a huge increase over the previous decades, but only half what it is today, in 2006 (one in seven).
Since I had many other books on the ?diet connection,? most of which considered fat to be the chief culprit in the initiation and promotion of breast cancer, I almost discarded this book. However, as I started reading it, Dr. Fredericks echoed many of my own frustrations, doubts, and outrage over the failure of modern medicine to prevent or cure this disease. This book spoke to me. As I continued, I discovered that Dr. Fredericks? theories were considerably different from those of the other authors, and for the first time in five years, I found an explanation that could link together all the other factors and theories: genes, environmental toxins, diet, and lifestyle. This book was the result of 30 years of research and consultation with gynecologists, obstetricians, endocrinologists, and scientists, and I will try to explain the basic concepts and elaborate on them.
- The amount of estrogen, produced in a woman?s body, can vary by a factor of five, which means that some women have five times as much estrogen in their bodies as other women.
- Estrogen (estradiol) is capable of causing cancer Estriol, a weak estrogen, is harmless.
- The ratio of estradiol to estriol is vitally important.
- Estradiol is metabolized to estriol in the liver.
- The ability of the liver to metabolize estradiol to estriol depends on the B vitamins, particularly choline and inositol.
- The diet of the majority of women is not adequate to promote optimal liver function, and the metabolism of estrogen.
- Failure to metabolize estrogen, to a harmless form (estriol), allows estradiol to rise to unhealthy levels, resulting in pre-menstrual tension, cystic mastitis, heavy and prolonged periods, fluid retention, endometriosis, menstrual cramps, uterine fibroids, and cancer (uterine, ovarian, and breast).
- In addition to the estrogen produced in a woman?s own body (endogenous estrogen), there is also exogenous estrogen, which comes from other sources:
- birth control pills
- hormones used to fatten animals for slaughter
- hormone replacement therapy
- xenoestrogens (chemicals which mimic estrogen and disrupt hormones).
It should be obvious, by now, that women must cope with estrogen from many sources, in addition to what their own bodies are producing. Considering that many women?s bodies are already producing five times as much as others, it is not difficult to see how their estrogen levels can rise to dangerous heights.
However, there is a liver-centered mechanism in the body that is specific for inactivation of estrogen and, according to Dr. Fredericks, it is clearly diet-dependent. The vitamins found to be responsible for optimal liver function (and estrogen metabolism) are the B-complex vitamins, particularly choline and inositol. Protein is also important, and the diet must contain adequate amounts of fish, meat, fowl, or dairy products in order for the B vitamins to be effective.
B-vitamin deficiency operates both forward and backward, which means that high levels of estrogen not only increase the need for B vitamins, but also deplete the supply. (This effect has been demonstrated in women who take birth control pills. The birth control pill depletes B6, B12, and folic acid.)
*It must be noted here that the level of deficiency to which Dr. Fredericks is referring is not enough to produce deficiency diseases such as Beriberi or Pellagra. However, it is enough to impede the liver?s ability to metabolize, and subsequently excrete, excess estrogen.
What are the reasons for insufficient levels of B vitamins? There are several:
- Over-processing of grains, cereals, and flour. Seventeen nutrients are significantly depleted when white flour is obtained from wheat. Three are restored through ?enrichment,? but they are not the ones required to break down estrogen. To provide the full spectrum of B vitamins, the whole grain must be used. This means stone-ground wheat bread instead of white bread, brown rice instead of white, whole buckwheat, whole rye, whole barley (not pearled), and cornmeal that is not de-germinated. Commonly, the most nutritious parts of grains are used for animal feed, because the role of nutrition in ensuring animal health is widely recognized.
- Stress. Prolonged, severe stress seriously depletes B vitamins.
- Prescription estrogens such as birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy deplete B vitamins.
- Excessive sugar consumption. When this book was written in 1977, Dr. Fredericks stated that the average amount of sugar consumed per person, in a year, was 100lbs. Bear in mind that this was the average amount. Some consumed more; some consumed less. And it has probably increased since the writing of this book. At a cancer seminar I attended in 2000, a doctor estimated sugar consumption to be as high as 150 lbs. per person annually. Most people only think of sugar as that which is present in candy, cake, pies, soda, etc., but in fact, it is added to virtually all of our ?prepared foods,? and many people are not aware that corn syrup, sucrose, glucose, dextrose, and fructose are sugar. Lest you consider honey, brown sugar, or raw sugar to be ?healthier? than cane sugar, they are not. There is no type of sugar that is healthy at the level at which it is consumed in this country. And that is not the worst news: excess sugar, like estrogen, works both forward and backward. It requires large amounts of B vitamins in order to ?burn? it. So, just as estrogen does with the B vitamins, sugar increases the need and depletes the supply.
While the medical establishment has been blaming fatsfor rising cancer rates, the role of sugar has been practically ignored. The fact that our grandmothers used animal fats, profusely, at a time when the incidence of cancer was much lower than it is today, completely escapes them.
However, this does not vindicate fats altogether. The rising use of polyunsaturated fats and partially hydrogenated fats (trans fats), is another story. Polyunsaturated oils and partially hydrogenated fats (margarine, shortening), go through processes which destroy the natural vitamin E that prevents rancidity and, in the case of margarine and shortening, the molecular structure is altered in order to turn them into a solid form. The end result is a fat that is capable of turning rancid in the body and producing free radicals, which damage cells.
In fact, a German scientist, Dr. Johanna Budwig, had linked the increasing use of these chemically altered fats to the rising incidence of cancer. Since they have a longer ?shelf life,? these are the types of fats that are used, most often, in commercial baked goods and breads, and may be difficult to avoid completely. Dr. Fredericks recommends using vitamin E supplements to counteract the bad effects of these fats, and also to limit the amounts.
By now, you have probably checked your multi-vitamin bottle, and are feeling secure because your supplement fulfills the ?minimum daily requirement? of the B vitamins. Well, guess again! The minimum daily requirement is the amount necessary to prevent Pellagra and Beriberi. It is totally inadequate for metabolizing the amount of estrogen that women are exposed to today, from their own bodies, prescriptions, and environmental toxins. These amounts were set many years ago, in our grandmothers? day. Granny did not use birth control pills or HRT. Her foods did not come in plastic containers that are made from a substance that is both estrogenic and mutagenic. In Granny?s day, most people did not smother their lawns with pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. They did not use cleaning products and air fresheners that contain substances that are either toxic or estrogenic or both.
Today, we are literally drowning in estrogenic chemicals that are frequently mutagenic, as well.If you doubt this, do a search on ?hormone disrupters?or ?xenoestrogens? and you will find decades of studies proving this. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health, is a good place to start. In fact, NIEHS is sponsoring studies at four major cancer research hospitals on the effects of these hormone disrupters on girls at puberty. Coincidentally, one of the effects seen in wildlife and laboratory animals upon exposure to these chemicals, is early puberty, and it is no secret that girls are menstruating at younger and younger ages. Early puberty (before the age of 12) is one of the risk factors for breast cancer.
By now, you are probably asking, ?How much B-complex does Dr. Fredericks recommend?? Well, first let me say that he does not consider vitamin pills to be a substitute for eating a nutritious diet (lots of whole grains, and minimal sugar or anything that is easily converted to sugar (simple carbohydrates). His vitamin regimen is meant to supplement a healthy diet, not to take its place. There are many substances present in foods that cannot be duplicated in a pill.
Since it will be impossible to achieve the optimal levels of choline and inositol in a single B-complex formula, he recommends choosing a supplement that fulfills the lower doses, then buying extra choline and inositol. These are recommended dosages of the most essential vitamins in the complex:
- 200-400 mcg. Folic acid (no more)
- up to 30 mg. PABA (no more)
- at least 25 mg. B-6 (no more than 50 mg.)
- 500 mg. Inositol
- 1,000 mg. Choline*
Dr. Fredericks mentions choline chloride or dihydrogen citrate, but I have not come across those formulations. Much of the available choline is from lecithin, which is obtained from soy, and may contain phytoestrogens. I use choline bitartrate, which does not come from soy.
From my own experience, I have found this regimen to be effective in the metabolism of estrogen. As I was nearing the end of my five years of Tamoxifen therapy, I made an appointment at the Center For Integrative Medicine, at a prestigious university hospital, to get advice on whether to take DIM (diindolylmethane) or I-3C (indole-3 carbinol), two supplements promoted for metabolizing estrogen. However, since I was already taking a low-dose B- complex formula, I only had to add extra choline and inositol, and I did this about one month prior to my appointment.
When I saw the doctor, he informed me that it was customary to do a urine test before prescribing one of these supplements. This was done in order to set the initial dosage, then the test would be repeated after a period of time, and an adjustment would be made. He was quite certain that my estrogen ratio would not be favorable. He said that it is very rare for a post-menopausal woman to have a good estrogen ratio.
I was given the urine collection kit plus detailed instructions for collecting, freezing, and shipping the urine to the lab. A couple of weeks later, I was shocked to find that my estrogen ratio was excellent. In fact, the good estrogen was 4.35 times the amount of the dangerous estrogen!
To my mind, this proved Dr. Fredericks? theory. However, it must be mentioned that I had also made dietary changes since my cancer diagnosis in 1999, and I also exercised daily.
As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, I consider Dr. Fredericks? theory to be the real diet connection, and sugar to be a bigger culprit than fat, for the following reasons:
- Sugar can act as fuel for cancer in any body site.
- In addition to depleting the B vitamins, compromising the liver?s ability to metabolize estrogen, excess sugar also over-burdens the pancreas, resulting in diabetes or borderline diabetes. Since elevated levels of blood sugar can be used as fuel, sugar is a cancer-promoter.
- Sugar (glucose) is an all-purpose fuel. It is capable of promoting even cancers that were originally hormone-dependent. After several years of estrogen-deprivation through Tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors, it is quite common for a cancer to mutate from hormone-dependent (estrogen-positive) to hormone-independent (estrogen-negative) in order to escape the effects of the drugs, and ensure its survival. At this point, the cancer will start using glucose. This can be clearly shown on a PET scan. This scan measures glucose activity in the cells. Since cancer uses large amounts of glucose, there will be increased glucose activity in the tumor sites.
In my opinion, the sugar theory also sheds light on one of the most puzzling questions of all: Why is it that the majority of breast cancer cases occur among post-menopausal women if estrogen is a major factor, and the ovaries produce 90% of the estrogen? I see a number of possible explanations:
The majority of women gain weight as they get older*, and fat cells retain the estrogen that was produced by the ovaries. The fat cells are also instrumental in the conversion of androgen, a male hormone, into estrogen. Androgen continues to be produced by the adrenal glands, even after menopause.
*As mentioned previously, the Nurses? Health Study did find a correlation between obesity and a higher incidence of breast cancer, even though they found no greater incidence related to the consumption of fat.
- Weight gain raises the glucose levels in the body, as well as levels of insulin-like growth factor. Growth factors stimulate cell division.
- The immune system declines with age. However, it must be mentioned that sugar is capable of depressing the immune system. This effect can be seen in diabetics, who have a greater susceptibility to infection and cancer.
- The ability to absorb vitamins, including the B vitamins, declines with age. Many doctors are now advising older patients to take supplements in addition to improving their diets.
- Older women have had more years of exposure to environmental toxins, many of which are both estrogenic and mutagenic. In addition, they have undergone more medical tests involving radiation. Radiation is mutagenic.
- Older women have experienced more years of stress. Some studies have shown stressful life events, to be a factor in cancer development, regardless of the person?s perception of the event.
- Many people develop elevated cholesterol levels with age. Cholesterol is instrumental in estrogen production.
- Many women become sedentary with age. Exercise is critical both in the metabolization of estrogen, and also in burning glucose, thereby lowering the levels available for fueling cancer.
- After menopause, progesterone is no longer present. The estrogen is unopposed, and if the ratio of estradiol to estriol is not favorable, cancer can be initiated and promoted.
It is possible that breast cancers in older women are so slow-growing that they would not have resulted in death (or symptoms), and that prior to the routine use of mammography, these cancers went undiagnosed and were not counted.
In addition to presenting Dr.Fredericks? theories, I have tried to relate information from many other sources, and also my own experience with the B vitamins. It is clear to me that there are many possible factors in the development of cancer.
Dr.Fredericks himself admits that it takes more than one insult to the body to cause cancer. Cancer requires a hospitable host. I have heard that statement many times, both from conventional and alternative medical sources.
While changing one?s diet or initiating an exercise program does not guarantee that one will not develop cancer, I believe that it creates a less favorable environment for cancer to develop, and when cancer is already present, it provides less fuel for its growth.
Considering the vast amounts of carcinogens and cell-damaging events that our bodies are subjected to from the moment of birth, it makes sense to eliminate as many hazards as we can. There are many things over which have no direct control, but we must control the things we can. Diet, exercise, and weight control are things that fall into that category, as well as the use of toxic chemicals inside and outside of our homes.~ Mary Mutarelli is a Bucks County sculptor who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1999, at the age of 53. Although she is currently disease-free, she continues to search for the answers that the medical community could not provide; not only for her own case, but for the virtual epidemic that has arisen over the course of a few generations, and shows no signs of abating.
0 -
Lisa, can you send a URL for that info? I'd like to email to a few I know... Spring.
0 -
Great article Lisa! That says everything in a nutshell that I have come to believe in the past year and a half in my pursuit of better health. It is always great to find more reinforcement that a natural regime is the way to go. I also would like to add that what is missing from Dr. Fredericks work is something that may also be contributing to the higher rates of cancer in the past decade: genetically altered crops. Monsanto is fast grabbing a monopoly in the seed market with their genetically modified seeds. They now spray seeds with pesticides before they are sent to farmers! They are even making it difficult for farmers to collect and use their own heirloom seeds. Even if a farmer uses organic seeds, the farm next door may be using the modified ones and cross pollination may be destroy the good seeds. Many of these new seeds are sterile anyway. Is this why the bee population is in danger of extinction???? This is a huge worry of mine and something I intend to start looking into.
0 -
Wow--Lisa, that is one of the best, clearly written articles I have read. Thank You!! I agree with all of her points and will send it on to friends and family. One thing I thought of that wasn't mentioned was the alcohol connection--since that has to be metabolized in the liver also, that might be why they consider even a moderate amount to be a breast cancer risk...
I personally want to get as much of the heathy things through food rather than supplements although I am now taking a multi-vitamin just to cover my bases--held off during radiation. I will look into the choline and inositol though...
0 -
-
Thanks Lisa, the article was awesome and answered a lot of questions.
Lorraine
0 -
Thanks for posting the link Allie........
0 -
Great article, Lisa. I'm going to give it to my PCP, and maybe one of my oncs. THANKS SO MUCH for finding and sharing it!!! Deanna
0 -
I need to order some of those B vitamins! And Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C) .... Apparently Inositol is B-8 and Choline is B-p. B-p!!! Who knew!!!
Spring.
0 -
Lisa, that is just what we natural girls needed. what a wonderful article....I too have been looking for answers, this provided a lot of info.
Amber
0 -
Spring, from what I have found, DIM is better for you than I3C....you may want to check into that.
This is where I get mine http://www.bioresponse.com/Home.asp
0 -
this is a bit long, but very interesting.......
0 -
fairy ~ That is fascinating on so many levels -- from the fact that the very company that makes tamoxifen is related to one that makes an herbicide known to be carcinogenic, to the mention of a link to the chemicals in hair dye. Wow! I don't know where you're finding this great information, but keep it coming! Deanna
0 -
Lisa.. that was awesome. But what about girls who are er/pr- and have had a Bi-lat with full node removal.
Where do we fit in?
0 -
Great article Lisa.
Easy to understand, and to the point.No BS.
0 -
Hi Ladies, I think I have just found a place I can call home on this discussion board! This is my first post ever so please bear with me. I am seeing a MD alternative, holistic doctor. This is the best I have felt in 5 years! I am a vegetarian, eat no sugar, no white flour and very rarely have any alcohol. I practice vinyasa yoga several times a week, walking my dogs, riding my bike the list goes on and eating organic food! You have no idea what a relief it is to see all of your posts! Off to sleep yoga in the morning!
Stacey
0 -
Here is the link to lisasayers long article
http://www.natural-progesterone-advisory-network.com/breast-cancer-the-real-diet-connection/
0 -
Lisa,
Thank you. I ordered the DIM rather than I3C. I am glad you are around !!!
Fairy, I have loaded up that other article to read....
Spring.
0 -
Thanks Rose!
Glad you got the DIM Spring
Fairy...the was a great article, much of the same things I've been teaching people for years in our health/wellness seminars!
You also get xenoestrogens in the personal care products you use...so just like you read your food labels, learn to read your personal care product labels as well.
You ladies rock!
0 -
Dear Amber-I just wanted to thank you for your persistance in trying to start a thread where we can share information without the arguments. As you know we have tried these discussions so many times, and ended up with a few trolls who would come in just to cause trouble. The threads would get nasty and we would be shut down. It was disheartening to say the least. We were only trying to help each other share what we are learning about natural ways to prevent a recurrance. Hopefully, our perserverance has paid off and we have found a home. It is so great to see more women join in and take part in taking control of their health. It just saddens me that so many of our "oldies" have been driven off by the way they were treated. I hope some of them will come back. There are a lot of gals out there who got me looking in this direction when I was a newbie. They were a Godsend to me. I am so thankful that they were here when I began this journey.
The article that Lisa just posted was truly informative and contains many of the points we have tried to get across. When I first read about the link to tamox, arimidex and Astra Zeneca I was furious. This company poisons us with their chemicals so they can sell us their drugs. We tried to bring this up and were blasted by people. When we criticized the whole October bc awareness month because it was sponsored by companies that make a lot of money off of it, we were blasted. When we tried to tell people that we would not support the Avon walks until Avon took all the carcinogens out of their cosmetics, we were told that we were overreacting. These companies do not have our health in mind.
Every time we tried to start a discussion to caution people about the use of dairy because of the hormones fed to our animals or the horrible effect too much sugar has on our bodies, we were infiltrated by nasties. I cannot tell you all how relieved I am that we have a peaceful thread here to share information. It is fine if people do not believe there are lots of lifestlye changes we can make to get and stay healthy. I just never could understand why those of us who do believe this, and have never felt better in our lives because we now live healthier, were not allowed to talk about it. Thankfully, we are finally doing so here. I hope all of you will continue to look in this direction. We may not be able to do EVERYTHING to stop bc, but we can sure do a lot more than just take a pill everyday. I know it is hard and sometimes overwhelming when you start digging around and finding all the ways our food and enviroment is tainted. I know it takes a lot of time to read every label when we shop. I know it is easy to say we are too busy to exercise every day or that eating organic is too expensive. But it is so important that we live this way from now on. It is so frustrating to me when I see family members killing themselves the way I use to. But it is so heartening to me that at least, I have sisters here who are not. So here's to good health for all of you. Keep looking for the truth.
Now I will say a prayer that we can all continue this important discussion and help each other along this path to natural health.
0 -
Sorry about the long post, but I could not get this pdf file to work otherwise:
Total Toxic LoadToxins are chemicals that damage bodily tissues, interfering with normal biologic
processes in our bodies. Toxic chemicals include medications such as cimetidine,
estrogen, and antibiotics, pesticides, food additives, adhesives, and solvents. The origin
of toxins can be divided into two groups. Those that are derived from internal bodily
processes, and those that come from external sources. Total Toxic Load (TTL) describes
the summation of internal and external toxins. The concept of TTL suggests that toxin
accumulation can compromise the normal physiologic functioning of the body. Literature
suggests an association between impaired detoxification and premature aging, cancer,
Parkinson's disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, and fibromyalgia.
High levels of bodily toxins, or toxemia, have synergistic effects, causing a
greater degree of damage than a singular toxin alone. This multiplicity of toxin effects
has been clearly elucidated in an animal study using mercury and lead. In this study,
scientists administered just enough lead to kill one percent of the test subjects. They did
likewise with mercury. But when they administered the same amounts of both lead and
mercury, all of the animals died. With regard to the extent chemicals disrupt human
physiology, we know very little. Virtually all testing conducted on man-made chemicals
are performed on each individual toxin. They are also only tested in animal models that
may have questionable correlation in humans.
It would seem that what governmental health agencies consider safe levels of
singular toxins, may not be harmless when determining the safety of the numerous
chemicals to which we are exposed.
Internally-Derived ToxinsThere are two classes of toxins originating from within our own bodies: those
from an imbalanced metabolism, and toxins produced by gastrointestinal organisms.
?? Imbalanced Metabolism
There is substantial diversity in human genetics. As different as each of us is in
appearance, so too are we in the genes that control our internal physiology. This
characteristic explains why an individual leading a healthy life will develop cancer, while
another lives into his/her nineties smoking and drinking for decades.
Genetic research is demonstrating that each of us may have numerous genes that
inadequately conduct the body's biologic affairs. One such genetic defect involves the
accumulation of homocysteine, a compound that can damage the vascular system and
contribute to heart disease.
Homocysteine is involved in the metabolism, or breakdown, of sulfur-containing
amino acids. This process requires the proper activity of numerous enzymes that initiate
the chemical reactions. Enzymes are produced by specific genes. If you happen to be one
of the unlucky individuals with a faulty gene that encodes for these enzymes, you will
have preponderance for the accumulation of homocysteine. Vitamin B12, B6, and folate
are intimately involved in this reaction as well. This phenomenon will be amplified if
your diet is deficient in the dark green leafy vegetables that are high in these vitamins. A
change in diet, and the supplementation of B12, B6, and folate will decrease
homocysteine levels. This example clearly demonstrates how a combination of weak
genes and poor diet and nutrition can result in the accumulation of toxic compounds
within the body.
There are hundreds of such genes that influence the ability of the body to conduct
the biologic reactions necessary to sustaining life. Some of the most important are the
enzymes produced in the liver for the purpose of breaking down and eliminating toxic
compounds in general. The detoxification pathways in the liver have been identified and
the enzymes required to complete each set of chemicals reactions are understood. As is
the case with the homocysteine scenario, some of us have genetic errors that produce a
less than desirable amount of these detoxification enzymes. We are then biologically
inclined to have more toxins in our systems, permitting these compounds to have
deleterious effects on tissues and organs. The antifungal drug, ketoconazole, is known to
inhibit the first phase of liver detoxification. If an individual is lacking in one or more of
the enzymes in this system and uses ketoconazole, he/she will experience many more
damaging side effects than a person with an intact detoxification system will.
Under normal physiologic circumstances toxic compounds are produced within
the body. Most persons have subtle defects in genes that code for biologic reactions.
Under certain circumstances, such as with the use of pharmaceutical drugs, the body
cannot cope with the amount of harmful chemicals, and an increased Total Toxic Load
will result.
?? Gastrointestinal Bacterial Metabolism
There are over 400 species of bacteria that reside in our intestines. Bacterial
colonization occurs at birth with the inoculation of the child by the mother's vaginal and
fecal organisms. During the first several years of life the organisms in the intestine
achieve a balance whereby healthy or beneficial bacteria outnumber the pathogenic or
disease-causing bacteria. Healthy bacteria produce vitamins, lower pH to inhibit parasite
growth, and produce short chain fatty acids, compounds that are important in nourishing
the lining of the intestine. Unhealthy bacteria produce toxins that can damage the
intestine, and are absorbed into the bloodstream thereby increasing Total Toxic Load.
Damage to the lining of the intestine is known as Leaky Gut Syndrome, and has been
associated with numerous diseases. Over the course of a lifetime, the intestinal tract
processes more than 25 tons of food, which represents the largest load of potential toxins
confronting the human body.( ) Achieving bacterial balance is critical for health, and if it
is not maintained chronic diseases can result.
A dysbiosis is an imbalance in the intestinal flora (bacterial organisms).
Antibiotics, impaired immunity, a poor diet, and exposure to pathogenic bacteria can
result in a dysbiosis. Yeasts (candida), parasites, and unhealthy bacteria capitalize on the
altered intestinal environment resulting from imbalance. All of these opportunistic
organisms produce toxic compounds that are absorbed into the bloodstream. Dr. William
Shaw, at the Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, has discovered
metabolites of fungi (yeast) and bacteria in the urine of patients with various neurological
conditions such as depression, multiple sclerosis, psychosis, and autism.
Toxic compounds that are produced by unhealthy bacteria, fungi, and other
parasites add to the body's Total Toxic Load, burdening the liver with an increased
detoxification workload.
Externally-Derived ToxinsChemicals that are derived from outside of the body are termed xenobiotics.
Xenobiotics can have profound, adverse effects on bodily tissues and organs. A study in
the December 5, 1998 issue of The Lancet, found a dose-dependent relationship between
dieldrin and breast cancer. Dieldrin is a pesticide that was used in the US for many years,
and continues to be used throughout the world. The results of the study clearly
demonstrate that the more dieldrin within your body, the higher your risk for getting
breast cancer. Many xenobiotics mimic estrogen and are termed xeno-estrogens. The
significance of xenoestrogens is that they have a high affinity for estrogen receptors that
are located on breast cells, and they are fat-soluble. In other words, once these
compounds are in your body, they do not like to leave and preferentially attach to breast
tissue, where they exert cancer-causing effects. These toxins also affect men by elevating
overall estrogen levels, relatively diminishing testosterone levels. Many xenobiotic
compounds are stored in fat tissue, and can reside there for decades. Due to the
ubiquitous nature of these compounds, most persons have over forty synthetic chemicals
in their bodies at any given moment.
Sources of externally derived toxins include:
?? Herbicides
?? Illegal drugs
?? Prescription drugs
?? Food additives including coloring agents
?? Pesticides
?? Fungicides
?? Alcohol in beverages and solvents
?? Volatile organic compounds such as formaldehyde, trichloromethane, and vinyl
chloride
?? Heavy metals including mercury, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and aluminum
Heavy Metals
Special attention must be given to heavy metals due to the significant effects these
toxins have on human function. Evidence demonstrates the ability of metals to impair
brain function, and they are likely culprits for impairing the cardiovascular, neurological,
gastrointestinal, and urological systems. Even small amounts of these toxins can have
deleterious effects. A study in 1999 found that patients with cardiomyopathy (a type of
heart disease) had blood mercury levels 22,000 times greater than that of normal test
subjects. Blood levels of antimony were 12,000 times, and gold 11 times higher than
control subjects. Other studies have made correlations between mercury fillings, a source
of mercury accumulation in other bodily tissues, and autoimmune diseases and heart
attacks. Levels of hair mercury levels were significantly higher in multiple sclerosis
patients than in persons without the disease.
Lead accumulation is another example of chronic heavy metal exposure. Hair
analysis, an effective means to identify chronic metal exposure, has made a connection
between lead levels and reduced intelligence scores and achievement scores in children.
Lead has also been associated with hyperactivity, delayed learning, fatigue, behavioral
problems, headaches, insomnia, and loss of appetite.
Prescription Drugs
For many, the use of medications can be a significant source of externally derived
toxins. Increasing the Total Toxic Load with these drugs can be especially frustrating,
because the dominant healthcare system in the West is so reliant on pharmaceutical
therapies. Most medical doctors downplay the hazards inherent with these chemicals,
because in medical schools it is what they are taught. The use of such powerful drugs is
tempting. Much of the time they provide quick relief from numerous ailments, but at a
cost. The majority of pharmaceutical medications provide symptomatic relief, allowing a
person to ignore their body's plea for help. After all, symptoms that are experienced by a
person are the initial signs that something is not quite right in the body, and when this
communication is ignored, health will only deteriorate. And all drugs have to be broken
down by the liver, thereby increasing this organ's burden. If your liver is busy
detoxifying medications, it cannot effectively remove other toxins, and the Total Toxic
Load will increase. This is the cost for dependence on drugs. The substantial growth of
alternative medicine is due largely to the dissatisfaction with these therapies that do not
support health.
Decreasing Total Toxic LoadAt this point in your reading you may feel frustration and hopelessness, believing
that toxins are unavoidable. Although in man's arrogance and ignorance we have
ultimately poisoned the very home in which we live, there are numerous methods to
effectively diminish our toxic load. If we are to live healthy and vital lives, it is critical
that we limit toxins and maximize the ability of our bodies to perform normal physiologic
functions. Performance is what the body is designed for. Within each body are the
mechanisms to sustain life, and all that is required is a level playing field. The 10
recommendations below are techniques to assist your body in maintaining optimum
performance.
1. Avoid chemicals used in food processing by eating a whole foods diet.
2. Increase your intake of diverse vegetables. Dr. Nick's Vegetable Mix is a practical
way to achieve this. Many vegetables are natural blood purifiers, aiding in toxin
elimination. Research suggests that the chemicals in plants can increase the
detoxifying ability of the liver. They also contain an abundance of vitamins, minerals,
and plant chemicals that are known to diminish numerous diseases.
3. Practice periodic fasting. Fasting, especially water-only fasts, is the best way to
detoxify the body. Digestion is one of the most labor-intensive processes the body
undergoes on a regular basis, and the ingestion of food allows a variety of substances
to gain entry into the bloodstream. Many of these substances are not used by the body
and have to be eliminated by the liver, the skin, and the lymphatic system.
4. Use blood-purifying herbs to cleanse the blood. Many of these herbs actually allow
the liver to detoxify the blood more effectively, as well as protect the liver from
damage. Some of the herbs proficient in this ability are milk thistle, green tea extract,
curcumin, bromelain, ginkgo biloba, gingerroot, and grapeseed extract. Most of these
herbs are also potent antioxidants. Dynamic Wellness' Herbal Antioxidant Support
contains all of these herbs.
5. Drink at least 10 glasses of water each day. Water flushes toxins out of the body by
way of the kidneys. Steam distilled water is recommended.
6. Eliminate coffee, soda, tobacco, and alcohol. These substances only serve to increase
the toxic burden to the body.
7. Treat Leaky Gut Syndrome if suspected. This is accomplished primarily through diet,
L-glutamine, butyric acid, and by maintaining healthy intestinal organisms with the
supplementation of Lactobacillus acidophilus.
8. Minimize exposure to pharmaceutical drugs. Many medications we take are to mask
the symptoms of an unhealthy body. If we focus on cleaning up our diets, most
medications can be minimized, or eliminated altogether. Remember that changing the
way in which our body functions is a slow process. It can take many months before
being rewarded with perceived health.
9. A well-balanced multivitamin/multimineral formula supports the body's chemical
processes, including liver detoxification. These nutrients cannot be easily obtained
with the average diet.
10. Regular exercise helps optimize internal physiology. The perspiration resulting from
vigorous exercise also is a useful way to eliminate toxins through the skin. Dry sauna
use can also facilitate this process.
0 -
Can someone give me a quick sum-up on why Tamoxifen is bad for you and why I should take it? I'm 4 weeks out of chemo and met with my onc yesterday. He wants to put me on Tamox and I have no intention on taking it but now I'm feeling somewhat unsure about it. I'm not planning on changing my mind about it, but it sure would make me feel better about my decision to have GREAT reasons
My biopsy report states that I'm a weak positive >10% but then oncotype dx says I'm ER- and final path from tumor says ER- <10%
I'm only 34 and I have endometriosis. Tamox can make this condition worse and I'm also wondering if dealing with endometriosis and adding Tamox on top of it couldn't simply cause cancer? I have no desire to put my body through 5 years of hormone therapy, it's already been through enough (Chemo + rads) and those are simply unnatural hormones not produced by my body.
My onc is still suggesting me to take it, but he can't give me a % of how helpful it would be due to my low ER+, I personnally donc think that the positive outweighs the negative of Tamox.
I don't plan on telling anyone we know about this struggle or I would just be considered as a stubborn person! But if somehow this ever surfaces, I want to be fully prepare with ALL the negative SE that could happen.
I was reading Lisa's article and made me wonder.
0 -
Cebula, I take Tamox but am ER+ 90%. LT 10% ?? For pete sakes. This just doesn't even make sense to me. I can see exactly why you are thinking this...
And there is this calculator where you can go and put in different "things" and see it's benefit. Will plunk below if I can find it. I think Otter posted a while back (maybe on a different thread?) For me it showed an increased life expectancy of 3.3 yeas or something. For others it's liek 8 months. Some women decide not worth it for 8 months! lol.
Spring (ps calc won't load, if someone else has link. pls post...)
0 -
Here you go ...
0 -
Humm, I tried the calculator, but it won't give me any numbers. I wouldn't be able to trust it any how because it doesn't have the treatment I was on and it won't let you put in the % amount for the ER+. Oh well...
As far as sugar goes, can anyone point me to a study/article that explains how cancer cells gets fueled on sugar? I would like to forward that information to a few people. Thanks
0
