Cancer Watch June 2010

2010 Research

CANCER WATCH JUNE 2010

Just click on the title to read the article

STAR STORIES

YOUR CANCER

 

STAR STORIES

New Blood test for cancer a breakthrough in detection

Cancer cells divide roughly 40 times before death occurs. Your death.

But even the best current cancer detection systems do not spot a cancer until it has already divided about 20 times. Physical symptoms of a tumour might not even appear until the division reaches 30 times.

Now two groups of scientists from Kansas, America and Nottingham University, England have developed a simple blood test which measures the first signs of a cancer cell. Although the test was originally developed for lung cancer, its logic can be applied to any cancer and work is now in place to develop more tests.

As the first abnormal cells develop, so they produce irregular proteins not normally present in the body. The immune system immediately produces antibodies against these ’antigens’, as they are called, and so the test (which measures these antigens and antibodies) can pick up a cancer right from the outset. A pilot test, called the Early CDT-lung test, on lung cancer is already showing remarkable success with smokers.

The test will shortly be available in the UK but only privately. Before the NHS adopts the test, the usual clinical trials will be needed.

Chris Comments: The benefits of this new screening test are potentially HUGE. For example, it will pick up the preseance of breast cancer about 4 years before a mammogram could detect it.

Frankly, any test that does away with screening mammograms has got to be a good thing, especially if it proves 100 per cent accurate. (Mind you 60 per cent accuracy would be better than mammography, if the figures presented at the European Breast Cancer Symposium a couple of years ago are to be believed!)

And accuracy is a very big issue. We have already witnessed twenty years of the PSA test (which relies on measuring a protein antigen produced by the prostate), and even today some cancer centres say it is wonderful, while others deride it. Figures show at least one in eight PSA tests are inaccurate. This new test could away with PSA tests.

With lung cancer, not only was the test accurate at very early stages, apparently in the American Pilot test, merely having the test encouraged some smokers to wake up and stop smoking even though they tested clear.

There is another major benefit. If ultimately people are able to have annual ’cancer tests’, when abnormalities are found the treatment needed may well simply be just a small scale removal of cells, with some non-invasive High Intensity Ultrasound. No radiotherapy and no drugs, required if you heed the warning and change your lifestyle.

Catching the cancer at this early stage means it is far less likely to have spread - another important benefit.

An early stage diagnosis is exactly what the Government Health Bodies have been claiming will see the 5 year survival figures shoot up. So what are they waiting for? Maybe the end of screening mammograms, most radiotherapy and chemotherapy is a bridge too far? Still, it would be one way of reducing Britain’s enormous Budget Deficit.

But there is going to be a bit of a conundrum to face up to. One little concern to my mind is rushing off into treatment at the first sign of a dodgy protein. We have recently had Danish Researchers studying mammograms where the unscreened group developed far less breast cancers across a six year period. The conclusion was not that mammograms caused cancer, but that the body was capable of healing itself in many cases if left alone. The researchers quoted other sources suggesting that many of us have cancer at least 6 times in our lives without ever knowing. The body deals with it. If we are to rush into cancer treatments at the first sign of an antibody, couldn’t that be just as dangerous? I don’t know. The saving grace is that those treatments could be minor and non-invasive. While discovering you have cancer cells present as early as possible will certainly mean more people will reach the 5-year survival point (irrespective of whether or not they have treatment), I would like to see if this means many, many more people will be simply diagnosed with ’cancer’ in this case a cancer that may never have ultimately taken hold of their body.

On balance this new test seems excellent news.

Return to top

Vitamin Supplements may increase cancer survival times

 

A study (Journal of International Medical Research; February 2010) which followed patients suffering from breast, lung, colon, brain and other cancers between 1990 and 1999 on the Danish Cancer Registry looked at those who were predicted to live an average of 12 months and who were taking orthodox medicine plus high levels of supplements.

 

Researchers claimed that the vitamins increased survival times by an average of 5 months.

Typically patients took:


  • Vitamin C   5.7mg

  • Vitamin E   1.625 gms

  • CoQ10   300 mgs

  • Linoleic Acid   375 mgs

  • Panthothenic Acid 22.5 mgs

  • Vitamin B6  12.5 mgs

  • Folic acid  5 mgs

  • Vitamin B12   13.5 microgms

  • Vitamin B1   5.4 mgs

  • Niacin   45 mgs

  • Fish oils   1.5 mgs

  • Vitamin A  25,000 IU’s

  • Beta carotene*  76 mgs

* Not given to lung cancer patients

Chris’ Comments:
Frankly I’m confused. I can’t see that this test was set up against a control group, so the claims just rely on how long the patients were ’guessed’ to survive. A proper Clinical Trial is planned.

Also the levels of vitamins are all over the place. Some are very high: For example, Folic acid is normally taken in microgram amounts, selenium in high doses is usually a maximum of 200 mgs, CoQ10 has research behind it showing amounts over 50 mgs are wasted. Others are too low: For example I take 1 gm of Fish oils a day normally! The vitamin A will double up with the fish oil vitamin A. Some vitamins are known to play important roles in immune boosting and against steps in the cancer process, but there is also no evidence whether these were natural or synthetic vitamins.

Vitamin supplements may increase cancer survival times, indeed. But I’m not too sure this study proved it to me.

 

 

Return to top

Rainbow Diet works for diabetes too!

Cases of Type-2 Diabetes are growing dramatically in our modern world with over 380 million cases predicted in the World by 2025. Medical recommendations include combining drugs with losing weight and a low-fat diet.  However, according to research in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the recommendations are not as successful as eating a Rainbow Diet!

Researchers (we have covered their work before) from the Naples Department of Geriatrics and Metabolic Diseases looked at the diet because of its high content of ’bad fat’ controlling foods (like fish oils, olive oil, nuts, seeds, lignans and lycopene in tomatoes). They then put the Rainbow Mediterranean Diet up against the normal medical recommendations within 215 overweight patients who had just been diagnosed with type-2 diabetes and were divided into two groups.  

Eating the Rainbow Diet significantly delayed the need to take drugs after 4 years only 44 per cent of Rainbow Dieters needed drugs compared to 70 per cent on orthodox low-fat diets.

The Rainbow Diet group lost more weight even though they ate the same number of calories and took the same levels of exercise!

Type-2 diabetes, being overweight and poor sugar control are all linked to increased risks of cancer.

(The new, Second Edition of Chris Woollams book, The Rainbow Diet will be launched on July 20th 2010 click here to read the review of the first edition)

Return to top

YOUR CANCER

 

Vaccine may prevent 80 per cent of breast cancers

American Scientists at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute have developed a vaccine that, in trials with mice, prevented a cancer cell protein forming. The protein is present in about 80 per cent of all breast cancers.

In the study, genetically cancer-prone mice were vaccinated - half with a vaccine containing -lactalbumin; the other half with a vaccine that did not contain the antigen. None of the mice vaccinated with -lactalbumin developed breast cancer, whereas all of the control group did.

The trials were conducted with mice, because they have 99 per cent of the same genes as humans. The researchers reported this vaccine as an enormous breakthrough and the plan is to take it forward to three stages of human Clinical Trials. These could take 10 years to complete. Currently about 42,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK, although about 12 per cent of these are false positives. 

Chris’ Comment:
As readers know my views on the issue of vaccines have been consistent for a number of years now: The failure of drugs to cure cancer on a large scale has meant that cancer bodies and drug companies have had to change their rhetoric and focus. No longer do they glibly talk ’cure’ but a more modest vocabulary of ’cancer survival’ and ’cancer management’.

But this is not due to humility. 2 million people live with cancer in the UK today. Cancer rates are forecast to double over the next 20 years. So that’s going to mean some very big profits keeping 4 million people alive with daily and weekly drug regimes. A cured person on the other hand is someone who has dropped out of the ’target market’ to use a marketing term.

So drugs companies have come up with another string to their bow ’If finding a ’cure’ for cancer is so elusive, why don’t we create vaccines to prevent the cancer in the first place?’ Then we can target everybody not just the 5 per cent with cancer. Brilliant, 20 times the potential market!

Now, I am all for prevention; like cutting out dangerous chemicals and pesticides in or on our foods and in our in-home, personal care and household products, and so on. Unfortunately, many of the companies searching for cancer ’cures’ are also making these toxic products, so vested interests overwhelm common sense

But what better than to find a virus at the heart of every cancer and create a vaccine to eradicate each? Every man could then have a 5 yearly triple jab against prostate, lung and colon cancer, every woman against breast, lung and colon too. The profits will be HUGE!

Already the HBV vaccine to beat liver cancer has been developed and seems to offer a serious benefit.

By contrast, as many of you also know, I consider the fuss made over cervical cancer vaccines positively ignorant. The vaccines knock out a few strains at best of the HPV virus and may prevent 70 per cent of HPV induced cervical cancer. But only time will tell, the vaccines have only been tested for a short period, ’experts’ are already saying that women may need a top up every five years (who knows?), other factors cause cervical cancer (there is some research evidence pointing a finger at talcum powder), the vaccine has never been tested with males (who have a different biochemistry to females) yet ’experts’ think all boys should be vaccinated too, an injection for females and males oin the UK will cost the Health Service 2 billion pounds which we don’t have, blah, blah, blah. Dr Diane Harper one of the top researchers involved in the Clinical Trials for Gardasil and Cevarix has gone on public record saying that ’This vaccine will not decrease cancer rates at all.’ I rest my case.

However, the theory goes wrong if it is found that viruses do not lie behind every cancer. Only recently claims that a virus XMRV lay behind prostate cancer have been shown to be rubbish. ’No link at all’ was the conclusion in the research published in Retrovirology. So the jury is out, but mark my words vaccines against ’viruses’ lying behind cancer is what the cancer bodies will be increasingly espousing (as they are prodded with very big Pharma Company sticks).

But this breast cancer vaccine is different. It neither knocks out a virus, nor boosts the immune system to fight one off, as with the history of vaccines from polio to measles. It is part of a new breed of drugs based on work with the Human Genome Project. More and more scientists are coming round to the view we have espoused for the last 6 years. Namely, that there are hundreds of different cancers and your cancer is as individual as you are. No longer will cancers be defined by location but by some unique factor, enzyme or protein that drives them. So a protein may be present in a breast cancer cell, and also a colon cancer cell and a brain tumour cell. Not all, but some of each. And drugs will be able to knock out thast protein - and even prevent it forming in the first place.

This breast cancer vaccine is an example. It is very clever.

I can see a problem: Can you really see this getting to market? Suppose it does. Then 80 per cent of the sales of Tamoxifen, Arimidex, Herceptin and other brands disappear overnight, not to mention the decline in importance and revenue of breast cancer charities! I so hope that this view is just cynical and that here, in this vaccine, we do have a genuine breakthrough that makes it to the doctors’ surgeries. But within two days of the first reports on this vaccine, I had already seen 5 articles raising concerns about, and even dismissing, this breakthrough.

I’ll put this article in my ’bring forward’ file for ten years time! We’ll just have to wait and see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return to top

Mammograms shown to increase risks of breast cancer. Twice!

1 Life-saving research supporting mammograms found to be flawed

You may have read research from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen before. It is usually the ’expert and prestigious centre’ sited for the latest vitamin bashing study in the tabloid press. However, when it concludes something against the cancer industry, its findings are barely reported.  So don’t be surprised if you have not read the following before.

A major plank of support in the ’mammograms save lives’ debate has been a 2005 study where a drive to screen women in Denmark with mammography was claimed to have reduced breast cancer deaths in Copenhagen by 25 per cent.

Now scientists from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen and the Folkehelseinstituttet in Oslo have re-examined this study along with additional data and found it flawed. In fact the corrected conclusions are exactly the opposite: ’Deaths from breast cancer were lower in areas where women didn’t undergo those screening tests’.

This time the researchers used a control group of non-screened women and analysed the malignancy data for ten years before and ten years after the screening programme was introduced. The results showed that deaths from breast cancer declined by 1 per cent in women between the ages of 55 and 74 in the screening areas but 2 per cent in non-screening areas! In younger women, breast cancer mortality went down by 5 per cent each year in the screened areas but over 6 per cent in the non-screened areas.The ’highly respected, prestigious and expert’ Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen concluded ’We were unable to find an effect of the Danish screening program on breast cancer mortality’ (British Medical Journal).

Chris’ Comment: We have told you before of the risks of screening mammograms and we have a full review on our web site on the subject (Screening mammograms increasing the risk of cancer?). One focal study (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine) showed that an increased incidence of breast cancer occurred with the advent of screening mammograms in Europe. Cancer experts immediately rushed to comment, ’Look how screening mammograms help find these early stage cancers’. You may feel they are talking rubbish.

We have also covered Norwegian research in icon that showed, across a six year period, a group of women who had regular screening mammograms had significantly more cancers than the identical control group having none. (Far from concluding that mammograms were dangerous, the researchers concluded that, left alone, early cancers could heal themselves!!?)

Then we told you about research by Johns Hopkins (Journal of the National Cancer Institute) on women with breast cancer genetic issues - the very group who are told by experts that they have to be extremely watchful and should be screened regularly. This group actually develops higher rates of breast cancer if they have regular screening mammograms that the at risk girls that don’t. So much for screening as a prevention tool.

We have also covered recent research that shows most mammograms only pick up a tumour when it has reached a size corresponding to at least 20 cell divisions. At around 40 divisions, you lose your fight with cancer. So 20 divisions is hardly ’early diagnosis’ (We are hopeful that mammograms may soon be replaced by new simple blood tests that catch a cancer in its very first divisions). Now the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen say one of the major planks of the ’mammograms save lives’ argument is false.

But that’s not all. It has long been understood that radiation causes cell damage and can increase mutation and cancer risk. Now read on.

2 Radiation increases breast cancer risk

Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in America (a US Government facility) have shown that radiation both changes the environment around breast cells and increases the risks of mutation in them; a mutation that can be passed on in cell division.

"Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous," said Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division, adding "Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment."

The results, (published in the on-line journal Breast Cancer Research), showed that a culture of healthy breast cancer cells stopped dividing four to six weeks after exposure, causing premature cell aging and allowing pre-cancerous cells caused by the radiation to infill the spaces around them. Normal healthy cells generate substances that prevent this in-fill. Thus radiation negatively effects the environment around breast cells.

Research has also shown that radiation can increase breast cancer malignancy by affecting a tumour-suppressing gene (p16).

Chris’ Comment: When you read all this it is no wonder women are becoming increasingly scared about the risks of screening mammograms. Especially when the cancer authorities and charities bang on claiming ’the screening programme saves lives’. Personally, I would not squeeze my private parts between two cold metal plates and have them irradiated in the vague hope that someone might spot a 4-year old cancer. Bring on the advanced diagnostic blood tests and send these screening machines to the scrap heap. 

Return to top

Colorectal cancer and a ’special’ omega-3 preparation

A team of researchers, led by Professor Mark Hull of the Leeds Institute of Moleculkar Medicine and funded by SLA Pharma AG, in collaboration with researchers at St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, St Mark’s Hospital London, St George’s Hospital, London and Sant’Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna has reported that patients diagnosed with a rare inherited condition called FAP (familial adenomatous polyposis) can have their polyps reduced by a special preparation of omega-3.FAP is responsible for about one in every 100 bowel cancers.

Professor Hull and his team say that further research is needed to find out if this new agent, EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) could help prevent the non-hereditary form of bowel cancer, which is the third most common cancer in the UK, diagnosed in around 37,000 people each year.  ’A safe and effective drug therapy may reduce the number of invasive check-up procedures, which can be unpleasant and always involve a small amount of risk’, said Hull. The particular preparation of EPA that we used delivers approximately four times as much beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acid per day as is derived from eating two to three portions of fish a week.  The drug is also designed to be released into the small intestine, minimising nausea and halitosis often associated with taking over-the-counter fish oil supplements said Professor Hull.

Chris’ Comment: Natural compounds to the rescue again. Please remember that concentrating it is one thing. It’s when drug companies start to make it synthetically the problems start.

Return to top

Vitamin D important to lymphoma patients

Lymphoma patients with a vitamin D deficiency are twice as likely to die from their cancer as patients with normal blood levels (defined as 25 nanograms per litre) say scientists at the Mayo Clinic (American Society of Haematology Conference).

50 per cent of patients in the study (all ’recently diagnosed’ in the years from 2002 to 2008) had a blood vitamin D deficiency. Over the following three years this group were 50 per cent more likely to become worse and twice as likely to die as those having normal blood vitamin D levels.

Chris’ Comment: We have long passed the point where there is a clear body of evidence that if you want to beat cancer you need to spend 30-60 minutes per day in the sun. If you cannot do that you should supplement. In March, 2010 (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism) it was reported that ’59 percent of the US population is vitamin D deficient, with a quarter of the population ’extremely deficient.’

In my opinion it is essential that cancer patients consider taking a supplement of up to 5000 IUs of vitamin D every day. The research is consistent across cancers from breast to colon, prostate to lung. Last year we covered research in icon that showed not simply that this was THE prevention vitamin, but that it possessed the ability to ’normalise’ a cancer cell. You can read more on our web site in the article ’Vitamin D are you getting enough’. Top American Cancer Centres now recommend it to their cancer patients. Meanwhile some ill informed UK ’cancer experts’ still tell people not to go in the sun. Remember my motto, ’Sunshine is sensational; burning is bad’.

Return to top

Early studies show lymphoma responds to fucoidan

 

 

 

Fucoidan is a natural compound found in various forms of seaweed like kombu, limu, wakame andmozuku plus animals like the sea cucumber. Researchers from the Hashemite University in Jordan at the AACR Dead Sea International Conference on Advances in Cancer Research working on previous studies that the extract from common brown seaweed causes cancer cell death (apoptosis) and shrinks tumours, have found that fucoidan suppressed cancer cell growth and caused a significant increase in apoptosis, or cellular death, in lymphoma cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact.

Previous research studies in 2002 and 2005 have labelled Fucoidan as an exciting new ingredient with potential for cancer treatment. Seaweeds containing fucoidan have been found to have anti-tumor activity in mice and Japanese researchers at the Biomedical Research Laboratories have found that Fucoidan caused leukaemia, lymphoma, colorectal and stomach cancer cells to self-destruct. It has also been found to have significant immune boosting effects, and can even reduce blood cholesterol levels and is effective in cases of meningitis. Fucoidan is found in two forms: F-fucoidan, a complex sulphated polysaccharide containing the sulphuric ester L-fucose; and U-fucoidan containing the trace elements galactose, xylose, and about 20- per cent glucuronic acid. About 4 per cent of the dry weight of seaweed is fucoidan.

Lymphoma is divided into two classes, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s, which are in turn further classified into B-cell and T-cell groups.

’Some forms of B-cell lymphoma are especially resistant to standard treatment and thus new therapies are needed’, said Professor Mohammad Irhimeh adding, ’in this study, we looked at a new treatment strategy using novel active compounds derived from a natural source seaweed.’

Clinical Trials are planned.

 

Return to top

Sulphur amino acid and B vitamins shown to be linked to lower lung cancer levels

French researchers working for IARC in Lyon have shown that a suphur-containing amino acid called methionine and B vitamins B6 and folic acid are linked to lower levels of lung cancer, even amongst smokers. In fact the reduction in cases where all three were highest in peoples’ blood was a massive two-thirds.
Methionine like cysteine, is an essential amino acid (you have to eat it, and you cannot make it) and scientists are increasingly noting the importance of sulphur in the anti-cancer process; for example with natural compounds like sulphoraphane from sprouting broccoli seeds.

It is know that methionine is a precursor to a number of essential compounds in the body, like phospholipids, carnitine, lecithin and cysteine, and a lack can lead to artherosclerosis. In particular the amino acid is active in the translation of messages from the genome to form the correct proteins.

B vitamins like folic acid, biotin and niacin have increasingly been shown to be important in the fight against cancer. B6 or pyridoxin, is a cofactor in the actions of a number of amino acids, and helps release glucose from stores of glycogen. Niacin, or vitamin B3, is an essential precursor to compounds involved in cell energy production, and in DNA repair. Only recently research in Cancer Watch identified a niacin-like compound as causing cancer cell death in people with cancer. Biotin (vitamin B7) is essential for cell growth and correct blood glucose control, and folic acid (vitamin B9), or the naturally occurring form folate, is essential to the correct reproduction and copying of the cell’s DNA. All have been found to be released from whole foods by the action of beneficial bacteria in the gut. A prime source is whole grains.

The French study followed almost 400,000 people and those who had the highest blood levels of methionine and vitamin B6 developed lower rates of lung cancer. Folate levels also had an effect, but this was lower. However, when all three were present in good concentrations the protective factor was highest. The findings were true even amongst both current and former smokers.

The study is part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) involving people from 10 European countries.

The results were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and concluded: ’Our results suggest that above-median serum measures of both B6 and methionine, assessed on average five years prior to disease onset, are associated with a reduction of at least 50 percent on the risk of developing lung cancer. An additional association for serum levels of folate was present, that when combined with B6 and methionine, was associated with a two-thirds lower risk of lung cancer’.

Chris’ Comments: Because of the general involvement in the body of both methionine and B vitamins it is likely that, in time, these impressive findings will not just be limited to lung cancer. We have long advocated the importance of having a healthy intestinal flora (by avoiding drugs like antibiotics and taking daily probiotics) and eating a diet of whole foods including whole grains.


Return to top

 

Eating Vegetables and Fruit to beat cancer is it all a waste of time?

 

 

Recent research has shown that eating 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day is linked to a 2.5 per cent reduction in the risk of cancer. This ’5 a day’ plan originated in 1990 when the World Health Organisation suggested it to help prevent cancer and other chronic illnesses. The 5-a-day plan has been promoted in America for over 20 years and in Britain for ten.

 

The new research study led by researchers from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, analysed 500,000 Europeans from 10 countries and showed that an extra two portions of fruit and vegetables each day could prevent 2.6 per cent of cancers in men and 2.3 per cent of cases in women. (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition). Lifestyle factors such as exercise and smoking were accounted for in the research.

 

The majority of media commentators have seized on these figures, seeing them as low and concluding that Government and cancer charities’ advice is poor.

 
Some experts are not so negative. Dr Rachel Thompson, Science Programme Manager for World Cancer Research Fund, said:
This study suggests that if we all ate an extra two portions of fruits and vegetables a day, about 2.5 per cent of cancers could be prevented. Given the fact that there are many types of cancer where there is no evidence eating fruits and vegetables affects risk, it is not surprising that the overall percentage is quite low. But for the UK, this works out as about 7,000 cases a year, which is a significant number.

 


Food, Glorious food time to ’come clean’

 


Chris Comments: Research like this tends to prompt quick, headline-grabbing responses, when in fact it needs to be put in the context of other knowledge and research findings. For example:


  1. We already know that people are completely confused about what a ’portion’ of fruit and vegetables means. Research showed that in the USA, people considered fried chips (French Fries) to be a ’vegetable’. Equally 5 helpings of rice or potatoes were also seen in another study to ’fit the requirement’. This is nonsense.


  2. We advocate that nothing beats fruit and vegetables for providing not just the vitamins and minerals that are essential to nourishing your body but co-factors, enzymes and other essential building blocks like amino acids. But it is quite clear that
     a) Research shows mass market produce is weaker in providing important levels of, say, vitamins and minerals than it was 100 years ago as our soils become depleted and crop rotation ceases to be the norm. And,
    b) Research followed up by the European Union experts resulted in conclusions that pesticides, for example, ’can be harmful to health and be a cause of cancer’. CANCERactive only recently reported on the effects of pesticides causing ’sticky proteins’ (MUGS) and increasing the risk of Multiple Myeloma in the over 50’s. The benefits of mass market vegetables and fruits may be being negated by the chemicals . And,
    c) Research shows that organic food provides significant levels of cancer fighting natural compounds, hardly present in mass market produce (For example, resveratrol formed in grape skins in response to attacks by moulds and fungus. These are not present when fungicides are used to spray the crop).


  3. We advocate the Mediterranean Diet and focusing on variety as particularly important when consuming fruit and vegetables. No one natural compound, any more than one single drug is ever likely to prevent or beat the multi-step process that is cancer. However individual steps have been shown to be neutralised by individual natural compounds. For example carotenoids (in red and yellow peppers), indole 3 carbinol (in broccoli), anthocyanins (in beetroot, red plums, aubergines), phenols (in green tea, olive oil), allycin (in garlic, onions, leeks), curcumin (turmeric), and polysaccharides (in mushrooms) and other natural compounds have all been shown to act against aspects of cancer.


  4. The role of beneficial bacteria has been shown in Clinical Trials to be crucial to your good health, as they alone control the release of important cancer-fighting compounds like sodium butyrate, vitamin K, biotin, folic acid and vitamin B-12 from your foods. People on drugs, especially antibiotics, or who have excessive yeasts and consume fruits during the day, will worsen the performance of these beneficial bacteria.  The research did not use controls for such groups.


  5. We have long maintained that the stance of Health Bodies and Cancer Charities who suggest that 50 per cent of all cancers are your own fault so don’t smoke, eat 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day, take exercise, stay out of the sun, and avoid excess alcohol is not just nave but misses crucial possible causes of cancer completely. Many cancers have been linked to chemical toxins be they work place, environmental, pesticides, or even in your household and personal care products. This new research has to be put in context. Why would people expect 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day to prevent cancer if the cause was actually an Electromagnetic or chemical toxin? This research highlights the need for leading cancer charities to ’come clean’ on this issue.

 

Fighting cancer

To experts at CANCERactive this research just highlights how there is no single disease called cancer your cancer is as individual as you are. Some cancers (for example, some colorectal cancers) may be caused by an excess of fatty foods and alcohol, whilst omega 3 in fish oils and vitamin D from sunshine can help prevent their growth. Neither is strongly found in mass market produce.
 
However, in other cancers fruit and vegetables may help: For example, Harvard research has shown the benefits of natural lycopene from cooked tomatoes and indole 3 carbinol from broccoli to be of benefit to preventing (and even reducing the symptoms of) some prostate cancers. However, other cancers like some lymphomas, some multiple myelomas and some leukaemia cases are definitely increased by exposure to chemicals so it is hard to see how eating fruit and vegetables could ever prevent or reverse those.

Frankly, if out of the total number of cancer cases in the UK - currently 2 million people have the disease - if 2.5 per cent could have prevented it even by eating 2 extra portions of potatoes, white rice and mass market produce a day it is a start that’s 50,000 people in Britain today, without the worry of cancer and a huge saving off the NHS health and drugs bill.  To put this in context, ’2.5 per cent of people beating cancer’ is a higher number of people than was found to have benefited from all chemotherapy drugs in both Australia and America, according to an Australian analysis of research covered in Cancer Watch a couple of years ago. And Cancer Charities and Oncologists endorse and recommend these expensive chemotherapy drugs.
 
Furthermore, imagine what could happen if people understood more about nourishment and exactly what vegetables to eat talking about a Rainbow Diet would help; as would coming clean about the benefits of organic food and natural compounds. But cancer prevention education needs to start in schools. It is something we proposed, complete with lessons in detail, but the UK Government funders turned us down.

 

 

 

Other articles of interest

Resveratrol
Indole 3 carbinol
Vitamin D
Vitamin K
Beneficial Bacteria and their role in vitamin release
Medicinal mushrooms
Garlic

The Rainbow Diet and how it can help you beat cancer
 

Return to top

 


 

 

 

2010 Research
CancerAcitve Logo
Subscribe (Free e-Newsletter)

Join Our
Newsletter

Join Our Newsletter Signup today for free and be the first to get notified on new updates.