by Dr. Merrill Garnett

The present day intellectual framework for the Biochemistry of cancer is based on the genetic code. Investigators have presumed that either the expression of oncogenes, or the failure of expression of tumor suppressor genes, is the basis of the disease. In practice however, present day chemotherapy has not benefited from this theory. And most of the pharmaceutical research has focused on interruption of the non-specific universal mechanisms of cell division. At the same time there is no gene-based explanation for the gradual maturation and aging of higher organisms. The genetic code, exquisite for explaining inheritance, does not give clear insight into the elegantly coordinated biochemical and structural changes occurring throughout the life of the organism. This dichotomy becomes more severe when we realize that the genetic code is the same for living and dead creatures. Therefore I have focused my research on the activation energies of the genome in order to delineate the differences between the living and dead states, and also between the maturing and the primitive states. Reports of Raman energy signatures in DNA is the first inkling that there is an intrinsic energy state which accompanies genetic material. These energy signatures have been shown to vary with the A and B oscillation configurations of DNA. This energy has also been shown to vary in subtle species-specific ways among the genes. For this reason, I have measured the electronic low frequency impedance oscillations of RNA and DNA and certain proteins. I have found and reported a number of wide-band oscillation frequencies within nucleic acids that demonstrate the storage of energy. I have also identified the specific electronic device identities of RNA and DNA and some immunoglobulins. To find the device identity of the biopolymers I used standard electronic impedance spectroscopic methods with a special background solution. This solution which I call a dielectrolyte, shields biological polymers from thermal and solvent current leakage. It allows current propagation as in an insulated wire or a coaxial line.

Use of the dielectrolyte reveals that both DNA and RNA manifest magnetic inductance, and certain immunoglobulins are ideal capacitors. Together these biomolecules comprise a parallel resonant tank circuit which is a superb model for the biological pulse, and the energy variations in a wide variety of conditions. This data has supplied a model for the design of chemotherapy agents which manifest the normal resonant frequencies of RNA and DNA. The first of these compounds to be developed is the palladium-lipoic acid polymer known as palladium DNA reductase. This compound carries current from membrane fatty acids to DNA at the resonant frequencies of DNA. This current is disruptive to anaerobic cell systems including certain tumors. In the absence of oxygen, the strong polarization force of the current dissociates membrane proteins. This mechanism is studied by the use of oxygen-facultative Tetrahymena cells in both aerobic and anaerobic environments. Such mechanistic reactions allow clonal selection of competent aerobic cell systems from stem cells. This then serves as a model for maturation selection during the life of the organism, and a new direction in chemotherapy research.

Despite the fact that the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review advocating that every adult take a multi-vitamin to reduce the risk of disease, still a significant percentage of doctors seem to oppose nutritional supplements, both directly and through nondisclosure.

This leads many people to wonder…….are dietary supplements safe?

Frankly, we at AMARC understand in theory some of the reasons doctors are concerned, and while we may not agree in practice, we think you too should understand before you start taking a supplement. So here are some of the common reasons doctors hesitate to encourage nutritional supplements:

- Doctors worry that patients will use nutritional supplements as a substitute for regular medical care, a good diet, or other important health habits. These are real concerns. Everyone should see a practitioner regularly. And no pill can replace a good diet and exercise; we encourage you to do your own homework on the benefits of both. Nutritional supplements are a good health habit, too — just don’t use them as a crutch for bad health habits.

- Doctors have heard scare stories about extreme dosages, drug interactions and poor quality. These are real concerns too. Some patients are cavalier about extreme dosages. Several herbs have interactions with drugs that aren’t yet well understood. Toxins and even drugs have been found in supplements from second-rate manufacturers. But these problems are easily dealt with. Make sure you are taking a pharmaceutical–grade and researched supplement, and tell your healthcare providers about any supplements you are taking. And again, research particular supplements, their benefits, potential interactions, etc. Make informed decisions about your health instead of merely relying on your practitioner or others to tell you what is right for you.

- Doctors are skeptical about claims made for nutritional supplements. There are sometimes ridiculous claims made for bogus products such as some weight loss pills. It’s just too bad that many doctors associate legitimate products with these bad practices. (Noteworthy: In comparison, and ironically, the pharmaceutical industry has had many instances of bad products and falsified data just to make a profit.)

- Most medical schools fail in nutritional instruction. Doctors tend to underestimate the importance of nutrition in general. No wonder: most doctors receive a mere few hours’ nutritional training in med school, and lack adequate time to keep up on the latest research. Their practice is based on disease screening, not prevention, with an emphasis on drug therapies, not nutrition. Such doctors naturally think that nutritional supplements have little therapeutic value. This is changing, especially among recent medical school graduates. Even oncologists at leading cancer institutes are advocating vitamin supplements for their patients. But it will take years before nutrition is a part of most doctors’ methods.

Choosing the right vitamin and supplements is vital but it can be confusing. There are conflicting claims about nutrients and dosages. Because of weak regulations, the labels on products are incomplete and misleading. Science in this area is rapidly evolving. And the number of choices at the vitamin store can be overwhelming. How do you decide what to do? Here’s our guide to finding the best nutritional supplements.

Understanding the essential nutrients your body needs

There is sometimes a danger to you in the way nutritional supplements are marketed. Some of those marketers would have you believe there’s a different product for every problem — the antioxidant vitamin, the vitamin B-complex, mood boosters, energy vitamins, herbal nutritional supplements — the list of vitamins and herbs goes on and on. Maybe each one of those supplements does have its own role. But there is often much confusion, and married with a sometimes lack of education, that concerns us.

The interaction of certain supplements is unknown. And this approach sometimes ignores the basic wisdom of your body: your body will naturally seek to balance itself if you give it the right foundation of nutritional support. That’s why we encourage each and every person to research diet and supplements in order to increase their knowledge of the roles and interactions of each, separately and in conjunction with each other.

This approach is based on how our bodies really work. Every day our bodies need certain raw materials to support the vast biological mechanisms that fuel our physical and mental activity, support our immune defenses, and regenerate skin, muscle, blood, tissue, and bone. This fuel comes in the form of macronutrients — protein, carbohydrates, and fat — and micronutrients: vitamins and minerals (which fall into four more categories: water-soluble vitamins, fat-soluble vitamins, major minerals, and trace minerals).

Some of these nutrients are familiar from the labels on food and vitamin packages. Fat-soluble vitamins like A and D have the capacity to be stored in our bodies. Others, like vitamin C and some of the Bs, are water-soluble, which means they are eliminated in our urine and sweat and must be replenished regularly. We also require essential fatty acids, which are often overlooked.

Our bodies need a ready supply of all these nutrients on hand to function properly. They serve as anti-oxidants, chelating heavy metals and attracting free radicals to detoxify our systems. Some help fight infection, clot blood, heal wounds, and strengthen bones. Others contribute to hormone production, convert food into energy and support healthy cell regeneration. Adequate levels of EFA’s help prevent inflammation and contribute to stable cholesterol levels which affect hormonal balance.

In this way, every essential nutrient has a vital task in our bodies. Moreover, each one usually works in concert with one or several others. For example, vitamin E works more efficiently in the presence of vitamin C. Calcium has a much higher absorption rate when taken with magnesium. And zinc may assist a variety of other nutrients to bolster the immune system. It’s almost impossible to isolate the effect of each vitamin — just as it’s almost impossible to isolate a single vitamin deficiency as the cause of any given symptom. For example, vitamin B deficiency can result in symptoms resembling vitamin D deficiency, and so on. That’s why the best vitamin supplements are well-rounded — to ensure that we benefit from the synergistic effect of all the nutrients working together. There are certain situations that are very specific but they are few and far between when we speak of general health and well being.

Bioavailability: the acid test of a multivitamin

Not everything we swallow is absorbed by our bodies. Every nutrient has to survive the chemicals and turmoil of the digestive system, be absorbed through the intestinal wall, and get past the liver to reach the bloodstream. Not everything we swallow is absorbed by our bodies. Every nutrient has to survive the chemicals and turmoil of the digestive system, be absorbed through the intestinal wall, and get past the liver to reach the bloodstream.

Scientists use the term bioavailability to measure what’s absorbed by the body versus what’s wasted. Unfortunately, in many ordinary multivitamins a great deal of the nutrients do not benefit the body at all — because they’re not bioavailable. The scandal is that you would never know that by reading their labels. The label only shows what’s in the multivitamin; it gives you no idea how much is bioavailable.

A basic problem is getting past the digestive system. In a pharmaceutical–grade vitamin supplement, many of the nutrients are chelated, or tied to another molecule which acts as an escort until it reaches the bloodstream. Both universities and private companies have developed and patented such chelated compounds. Because they are relatively expensive to license they are rarely seen in ordinary multivitamins.

A second problem is processing methods. Many ordinary multivitamins use inexpensive processes and rely on additives. These processes can destroy the nutritional value of the supplements or render them unrecognizable to the body.

This is why the half of Americans who take multivitamins is not noticeably healthier than the half that doesn’t. Many of them are taking ordinary vitamins that lack the range of nutrients their bodies need or low-price or discount vitamins that are less effective due to their processing methods and the limited bioavailability of their nutrients.

At AMARC, we’re concerned that sometimes the labeling regulations can be misleading for consumers. But bioavailability is a relatively new area of nutritional science that is evolving rapidly, and we don’t expect to see standardized measurements of bioavailability of nutritional supplements for many years. In the meantime, you have to rely on the quality of the research and the manufacturing methods that are behind your vitamin supplements when choosing a multivitamin.

The controversy over RDA’s and vitamin dosages

A few of us may remember growing up when rickets and scurvy were commonplace. These diseases led to the development during WWII of the Required Daily Allowances (RDA’s) for vitamins and minerals, and the familiar Food Pyramid as an eating plan. Cereals and white flour were fortified with basic nutrients. Now “deficiency diseases” like rickets and scurvy are common only in third world countries.

Unfortunately the RDA’s are not a good guide for consumers who want to use nutritional supplements to support optimal health and prevent disease. That’s because RDA’s were meant to be bare minimums, not optimal dosages. And while nutritional science has made stunning progress in the last 60 years, there is no consensus yet about optimal dosages for multivitamins or multi-minerals, add to the each persons own unique chemistry and you can see why it might be difficult.

A good example is the new information surfacing about vitamin D. Not only is it important for calcium absorption, it also appears to help in weight loss, strengthen bone, and protect against cancer and depression. Our bodies seem designed for large amounts of vitamin D, as we create 20,000 IU of vitamin D in just 20 minutes of sun exposure. Yet the RDA for vitamin D is only one-tenth of that — for example, 200 IU for a woman age 31–50.

What we do know today is that significantly higher doses of vitamins and minerals are needed for optimal health than are recommended in the RDA’s. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, established therapeutic dosages many times higher than the RDA’s. What’s needed is long-term study of the effects of different dosages, plus a better understanding of how nutritional supplements might be personalized to each individual’s needs. In the meantime, our approach is to recommend a conservative but therapeutic dose based on the latest nutritional science.

The Institute of Medicine, which advises the FDA, has undertaken a complete revision of RDA’s based on the latest findings. These new Daily Reference Intakes (DRI’s) will be based on RDA’s but reflect our changing need for nutrients as we age and provide for a broader range of dosages. We hope it will rectify some of the larger gaps left in our nutrition by the current guidelines. It will use updated RDA’s as minimums and over time establish upper limits on what is recommended. Of course, that process will take many years.

So what is the best multivitamin

We have strong views about the qualities of the best multivitamin/supplement. Here is how we would describe the perfect formulation:

-Complete. Based on the latest nutritional science, we need at least 30 vitamins and minerals, plus a rich essential fatty acid formula (i.e., omega–3 and omega–6 fatty acids).

-Bioavailable. The nutrient forms must be the most bioavailable. And of course it must meet USP standards for solubility.

-Natural. No artificial preservatives, dyes, allergens or other contaminants. The fatty acid formula (derived from marine lipids) must be certified to be free of mercury and lead.

Reliable. We’ve been waiting over 10 years for the FDA to issue manufacturing standards for nutritional supplements. In the meantime, there are several sets of standards that have earned international recognition. The manufacturer must meet at least one of these recognized standards.

-Laboratory tested. As is true for pharmaceutical drugs, every production batch of a nutritional supplement must be tested in a laboratory (i.e., “standardized”) to ensure that it contains exactly what is on its label.

-Makes a difference. You are the final test. If the nutritional supplement doesn’t improve your health and or help to make you feel better within the first 30-60 days, (depending on your concerns of course) try another formula. It may not resolve all your symptoms in that time, but you should feel improvement.

In short, we don’t care which or whose multivitamin/supplement you take, as long as it’s a good one and it works for you. You will be amazed at the difference it can make. Patient after patient — even the most skeptical — cannot say enough about how good Poly-MVA and our other supplements make them feel. And that is what abundant nutrition is all about — feeling fit, energized, and living well.

At AMARC, we don’t think it is enough just to live longer. We want you to live well and enjoy every minute in the best of health. We know this can be possible with the help of good dietary choices and beneficial supplements. So really, the only thing we all have to lose by not following this advice is our health — and who can afford that?

30 tricks, tips, and tactics to help keep you out of the Big C’s reach

by Denise Foley, Prevention Magazine

We’re all grown-ups here–nightmares aren’t a big problem anymore. We’re calm, we’re cool, we’re mostly collected…until it comes to the C-word. For adults, cancer is the thing that goes bump in the night; that bump gets louder when family or friends are diagnosed. Whether your risk is monumental or blessedly average, we know you want to protect yourself. So we’ve combed through research, interrogated experts, and found cutting-edge strategies to help keep you safe.

Worship a wee bit of sun.

People who get the most vitamin D, which lies dormant in skin until ultraviolet rays activate it, may protect themselves from a variety of cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, breast, and colon. Ironically, it even improves survival rates of melanoma, the most serious skin cancer. But 10 to 15 minutes a few days a week is all it takes to benefit. (Or you could try a supplement–aim for 400 IU a day.) If you’re out any longer than that, slather on the sunscreen.

Eat an orange every day.

It just may zap a strain of the H. pylori bacteria that causes peptic ulcers and can lead to stomach cancer. Researchers in San Francisco found that infected people with high levels of vitamin C in their blood were less likely to test positive for the cancer-causing strain.

Listen to Katie Couric.

Though colonoscopies are about as popular as root canals, if you’re 50 or older, get one. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Don’t think you’re off the hook because you got a digital fecal occult blood test at your last checkup: Research by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study last year found that the test missed 95% of the cases. (Schedule your first colonoscopy before your 50th if you have a family history of colon cancer.)

Steam a little green.

Piles of studies have shown that piles of broccoli help stave off ovarian, stomach, lung, bladder, and colorectal cancers. And steaming it for 3 to 4 minutes enhances the power of the cancer-fighting compound sulforaphane, which has been shown to halt the growth of breast cancer cells. (Sorry, microwaving doesn’t do the trick; it strips out most antioxidants.) Get more protection by sprinkling a handful of selenium-rich sunflower seeds, nuts, or mushrooms on your greens. Researchers are discovering that sulforaphane is about 13 times more potent when combined with the mineral selenium.

Pick a doc with a past.

Experience–lots of it–is critical when it comes to accurately reading mammograms. A study from the University of California, San Francisco, found that doctors with at least 25 years’ experience were more accurate at interpreting images and less likely to give false positives. Ask about your radiologist’s track record. If she is freshly minted or doesn’t check a high volume of mammograms, get a second read from someone with more mileage.

Drink joltless java.

Downing 2 or more cups of decaf a day may lower the incidence of rectal cancer by 52%, finds a study from two large and long-term research projects–the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study from Harvard University. One theory is that coffee increases bowel movements, which helps to reduce the risk. Why decaf reigns supreme, however, remains a mystery.

Drop 10 pounds.

Being overweight or obese accounts for 20% of all cancer deaths among women and 14% among men, notes the American Cancer Society. (You’re overweight if your body mass index is between 25 and 29.9; you’re obese if it’s 30 or more. Click here to gauge your BMI.) Plus, losing excess pounds reduces the body’s production of female hormones, which may protect against breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. Even if you’re not technically overweight, gaining just 10 pounds after the age of 30 increases your risk of developing breast, pancreatic, and cervical, among other cancers.

Make like a monkey.

Or a bunny. Women who ate four to six antioxidant-laden bananas a week cut their risk of kidney cancer by 54%, compared with those who didn’t eat them at all, found an analysis of 61,000 women at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden. Gnawing on root vegetables such as carrots did the same.

Get naked with a friend.

You’ll need help examining every inch of your body–including your back, scalp, and other hard-to-see places–for possible changes in the size or color of moles, blemishes, and freckles. These marks could spell skin cancer. Women, take special note of your legs: Melanoma mainly occurs there. For the guys, the trunk, head, and neck are the most diagnosed spots. While you’re at it, check your fingernails and toenails, too. Gray-black discoloration or a distorted or elevated nail may indicate the disease. And whether you see changes or not, after age 40, everyone should see a dermatologist yearly.

See into the future.

Go to Your Disease Risk to assess your chance of developing 12 types of cancer, including ovarian, breast, and colon. After the interactive tool estimates your risk, you’ll get personalized tips for prevention.

Pay attention to pain.

If you’re experiencing a bloated belly, pelvic pain, and an urgent need to urinate, see your doc. These symptoms may signal ovarian cancer, particularly if they’re severe and frequent. Women and physicians often ignore these symptoms, and that’s the very reason that this disease can be deadly. When caught early, before cancer has spread outside the ovary, the relative 5-year survival rate for ovarian cancer is a jaw-dropping 90 to 95%.

Get calcium daily.

Milk’s main claim to fame may also help protect your colon. Those who took calcium faithfully for 4 years had a 36% reduction in the development of new precancerous colon polyps 5 years after the study had ended, revealed Dartmouth Medical School researchers. (They tracked 822 people who took either 1,200 mg of calcium every day or a placebo.) Though the study was not on milk itself, you can get the same amount of calcium in three 8-ounce glasses of fat-free milk, along with an 8-ounce serving of yogurt or a 2- to 3-ounce serving of low-fat cheese daily.

Sweat 30 minutes a day.

One of the best anticancer potions is a half hour of motion at least 5 days a week. Any kind of physical activity modulates levels of androgens and estrogen, two things that can protect women against estrogen-driven cancers such as ovarian and endometrial, as well as some types of breast cancer. The latest proof comes by way of a recent Canadian study that found that women who get regular, moderate exercise may lower their risk of ovarian cancer by as much as 30%. Bonus: All that moving might speed everything through your colon, which may help stave off colon cancer.

Stamp out smoking–all around you.

Lung cancer is well known as one of the main hazards of smoking. But everything the smoke passes on its way to the lungs can also turn cancerous: mouth, larynx, and esophagus. The fun doesn’t stop there. Smokers are encouraging stomach, liver, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers as well. The good news: If you give up the cigs today, within 15 years, your lung cancer risk will drop to almost presmoking lows. Share that news with the people who puff around you, because exposure to someone else’s smoke can cause lung cancer, and it may boost your chances of cervical cancer by 40%.

Step away from the white bread.

If you eat a lot of things with a high glycemic load–a measurement of how quickly food raises your blood sugar–you may run a higher risk of colorectal cancer than women who eat low-glycemic-load foods, finds a Harvard Medical School study involving 38,000 women. The problem eats are mostly white: white bread, pasta, potatoes, and sugary pastries. The low-glycemic-load stuff comes with fiber. To find out how your diet fares, go to “Your Guide to the Glycemic Index.”

Have your genes screened.

Do you have a strong family history of any kind of cancer or multiple cancers? Talk with your doctor about genetic counseling. For instance, nearly everyone born with familial adenomatous polyposis (the genetic predisposition to colon cancer) develops the disease by age 40 if preventive surgery isn’t done. Knowing this early can aid in prevention and early detection.

Request a better breast scan.

If you’re at high risk of breast cancer–you have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutation, for example–ask your doctor to pair your routine mammogram with an MRI. A recent study found that together, the two picked up 94% of tumors; mammography alone detected just 40% and MRI, 77%.

Grill smarter.

Cooking your food over an open flame is a great way to cut calories. Unfortunately, it can also raise your cancer risk: The grill’s high temps can trigger substances in muscle proteins to form cancer-causing compounds called hetero-cyclic amines, or HCAs. But avoiding this potential hazard is easy; simply keep gas jets low or wait until the charcoal turns into glowing embers before you start cooking. Protect yourself even more by lacing your burgers with rosemary (and perhaps other antioxidant-rich herbs such as basil, oregano, or thyme). This helps reduce the amount of some HCAs in meat, a Kansas State University study found. Also helpful: Microwaving meat ahead of time helps disable HCA formation and cuts down on grilling time.

Keep your house clean.

Yet another reason to love your Swiffer: Active postmenopausal women who got most of their exercise from housework cut their risk of breast cancer by 30%, Canadian researchers say.

Let garlic lie.

Thanks to this bulbed wonder, you can ward off vampires and stave off cancer. To preserve the potential cancer-fighting power of garlic, chop it up and let it sit a bit. Research suggests that heating garlic can block 90% of the activity of alliinase, the enzyme that helps to form a cancer-fighting compound. Alliinase is activated when the cloves are crushed or cut, but if cut garlic cools its heels for 5 to 10 minutes before heating, enough compounds are formed to survive cooking.

Check for radon.

Exposure to this odorless, radioactive gas that’s produced by the natural decay of uranium is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States, according to the EPA. Test your home to see if you’re safe. The National Safety Council’s National Radon Hotline (800-767-7236) offers low-cost test kits; they’re also available at hardware stores.

Play hot tomato.

Red fruits (watermelon, tomato, pink grapefruit) are loaded with lycopene, a substance that has been proven time and time again to be a potent cancer fighter. It seems that heating said fruits makes the lycopene easier for the body to use, which explains why men who eat a lot of ketchup, pizza (it’s in the sauce), and spaghetti (ditto) are far less likely to get prostate cancer.

Ditch the wieners.

You can smother ‘em in all the ketchup you want, but you can’t negate a hot dog’s, well, negatives. A new study of 190,545 people finds that eating a wiener daily may boost your risk of pancreatic cancer, which is nearly always fatal, by 67%. Same goes for sausage and other processed meats.

The Perfect Cancer- fighting Salad

Quick. Can you spot the cancer fighters at the salad bar? Build yourself some powerful protection with these ingredients.

Start with leafy greens.

They contain a hefty amount of the B vitamin folate, which has been shown to reduce one’s chances of getting colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers. In the latest study, researchers at Vanderbilt University found that women who ate the most dark greens were among the least likely to get breast cancer. Apparently, folate can halt changes in DNA that trigger runaway cell growth, the main characteristic of cancer.

Add shredded carrot.

In a study from Brigham and Women?s Hospital in Boston, women who ate just five servings of four raw carrot sticks a week had a 54% decrease in their risk of getting ovarian cancer, compared with women who ate them less than once a month. Carrots may also reduce your risk of kidney cancer.

Serve yourself some tomatoes.

If you don’t feel like turning up the heat on your tomatoes, you can still get some of their cancer-shielding benefits. German research on 165 colonoscopy patients found that those who had the lowest blood level of lycopene, one of the chemicals that give tomatoes their color, had the highest rate of colorectal adenomas, a precursor to colo-rectal cancer. Toss a few into your guy’s salad: They also reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

Heap on beans.

Women who ate beans at least twice a week were 24% less likely to develop breast cancer than those who ate them less often, report Harvard School of Public Health researchers, who analyzed data from 90,630 people. Legumes may lessen risk of breast cancer, thanks to their ability to suppress the production of enzymes that encourage tumor growth.

Add a little fish.

Want to add something hardy to your lunchtime salad? Go wild with salmon. When B6-rich foods (like salmon) are eaten with folate-filled foods (dark leafy greens), they can help reduce the recurrence of colorectal adenomas, a precursor to colorectal cancer, by 39%, a University of Arizona study found. Salmon may also help shield regular eaters from skin cancer, British research found.

Splash on some vinaigrette.

Mixing your favorite vinegar with olive oil can also help prevent breast cancer. Scientists from Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine found that oleic acid in olive oil dramatically cuts the levels of the cancer gene Her-2/neu, associated with highly aggressive breast tumors with poor prognosis.

Garnish with citrus peel.

They’re like eating sunscreen–but they taste better. Limonene–a compound that gives oranges, lemons, and limes their scent–is linked to a 34% reduction in skin cancer, finds a University of Arizona study of 400 people.

MONDAY, March 19 (HealthDay News) — Men who are obese when they’re diagnosed with prostate cancer are 2.6 times more likely to die of the disease than normal-weight men, new findings suggest.

The study, by researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, included 752 recently diagnosed prostate cancer patients who were followed for about 10 years. Of the men in the study, 50 died of prostate cancer, and 64 died of other causes.

“I was very surprised by the findings. We found the prostate-cancer-specific mortality risk associated with obesity was similar regardless of treatment, disease grade or disease stage at the time of diagnosis,” senior author Alan Kristal, associate head of the Cancer Prevention Program in Hutchinson’s Public Health Sciences Division, said in a prepared statement.

“If a man is obese at the time of diagnosis, he faces a 2.6-fold greater risk of dying as compared to a normal-weight man with the same diagnostic profile, regardless of whether he has radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy, whether or not he gets androgen-deprivation therapy, whether he has low- or high-grade disease, and whether he has localized, regional or distant disease,” Kristal said.

The study also found that obese men with local or regional prostate cancer — disease that’s confined to the prostate or has spread to surrounding tissue — are 3.6 times more likely than normal-weight men to have their cancer spread to distant organs (metastatis).

It’s believed that both inflammation and steroid hormones are factors in the link between obesity and increased risk of prostate cancer metastasis and death, the researchers said.

“We are now beginning to appreciate that obesity is a massive inflammatory condition, and obesity also increases levels of serum estrogens and growth factors that can promote cancer growth,” Kristal said.

The study is published in the March 15 issue of Cancer magazine.

Prescription drug abuse will soon exceed use of illicit street narcotics worldwide

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

The Associated Press

Abuse of prescription drugs is about to exceed the use of illicit street narcotics worldwide, and the shift has spawned a lethal new trade in counterfeit painkillers, sedatives and other medicines potent enough to kill, a global watchdog warned Wednesday.

Prescription drug abuse already has outstripped traditional illegal drugs such as heroin, cocaine and Ecstasy in parts of Europe, Africa and South Asia, the U.N.-affiliated International Narcotics Control Board said in its annual report for 2006.

In the United States alone, the abuse of painkillers, stimulants, tranquilizers and other prescription medications has gone beyond “practically all illicit drugs with the exception of cannabis,” with users increasingly turning to them first, the Vienna-based group said.

Unregulated markets in many countries make it easy for traffickers to peddle a wide variety of counterfeit drugs using courier services, the mail and the Internet.

“Gains over the past years in international drug control may be seriously undermined by this ominous development if it remains unchecked,” Narcotics Control Board President Philip O. Emafo said.

Discount medications that seem to be authentic often turn out to be powerful knockoffs concocted from recipes posted on the Web, he added.

“Instead of healing, they can take lives,” Emafo said, characterizing the danger as “real and sizable.”

Up to 50 percent of all drugs taken in developing countries are believed to be counterfeit, the board said, citing estimates from the World Health Organization.

Buprenorphine, an analgesic, is now the main injection drug in most of India, and it is also trafficked and abused in tablet form in France, where the Narcotics Control Board estimates 20-25 percent of the drug sold commercially as Subutex is being diverted to the black market.

The number of Americans abusing prescription drugs nearly doubled from 7.8 million in 1992 to 15.1 million in 2003, the Narcotics Control Board said. Among their prescription drugs of choice: the painkillers oxycodone, sold under the trade name OxyContin, and hydrocodone, sold as Vicodin and used by 7.4 percent of college students in 2005.

Although the number of U.S. high school and college students abusing illicit drugs declined in 2006 for a fourth consecutive year, “the high and increasing level of abuse of prescription drugs by both adolescents and adults is a serious cause for concern,” it said.

Counterfeiters are exploiting intense demand for prescription drugs that can give a “high” comparable to cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, the watchdog group said.

It singled out Scandinavia, where demand for flunitrazepam a sedative sold as Rohypnol and widely known as a “date rape drug” increasingly is being met by unauthorized production, and North America, where widespread abuse of prescription drugs, including the narcotic fentanyl 80 times as potent as heroin has been blamed for a spike in deaths.

“The very high potency of some of the synthetic narcotic drugs available as prescription drugs presents, in fact, a higher overdose risk than the abuse of illicit drugs,” Emafo said.

Exact figures were unavailable, he said, because few countries “are aware to what extent drugs are being diverted and abused” and are not tracking the trend. Nations should pay closer attention and share data on counterfeit drug seizures, the group urged.

Other findings in the annual report:

Cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan hit a record high last year, the Narcotics Control Board said, echoing assessments by the U.S. government and the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. “The drug control situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating,” the report said, criticizing a proposal to legalize cultivation as “simplistic, not feasible and based on the wrong premise.”

Iran has emerged as the world’s No. 1 abuser of opiates, and 2.8 percent of the population now uses illicit cocaine and heroin, most of it from Afghanistan. Emafo said the Iranian government “is aware of the problem … (and) is taking appropriate action to protect the health of its citizens.”

Bolivia plans to introduce a drug control policy that would broaden the marketing and use of coca leaves a step the Narcotics Control Board warned could violate international drug conventions. The Bolivian mission to the U.N. in Vienna lodged a protest Wednesday, insisting the country has a right to commercially produce coca for legal products such as flavoring.

The Narcotics Control Board defended its opposition to so-called “safe injection rooms,” where addicts are given clean needles. In Germany and other European nations, such centers have been credited with helping curb the spread of AIDS. “We do not believe in injection rooms,” Emafo said. “That cannot be treatment … this is not healthful.”

Who will care for America’s baby boomers when cancer strikes? A new study predicts a shortfall of as many as 4,000 oncologists by 2020, with no easy solution in sight

By Eve Conant

Newsweek

March 13, 2007

Over the next decade it will get harder and harder for cancer patients to find a doctor, according to a new report released Tuesday in the Journal of Oncology Practice. The cause: an oncoming crush of cancer patients which will create a demand for care that dwarfs the supply of doctors able to provide it.

Advances in cancer-fighting medicine and technology have resulted in increasing numbers of cancer survivors. At the same time, an aging and significantly large population of baby boomers will mean an increase in cancer diagnoses as this pivotal group passes 65, the age at which cancer rates spike. Add to the mix a slowing growth in the supply of oncologists, and according to the authors of the study, the result is a drastic shortage of oncologists by 2020, just as cancer rates in the country are expected to soar.

Even current figures are worrisome. There are about 10,400 oncologists in the United States today with roughly 500 new ones entering the workforce each year. Yet, an estimated 1.4 million people will be diagnosed with cancer in 2007. Looking ahead, the study predicts a 48 percent jump in cancer incidence and an 81 percent increase in Americans living with or surviving cancer in the years leading up to 2020. But the crunch might be felt even earlier as oncologist caseloads rise. “It will likely get tougher to get an appointment with an oncologist over the next few years,” predicts one of the study’s authors, Edward Salsberg, director of the Center for Workforce Studies at the Association of American Medical Colleges, which conducted the study.

If a boomer does manage to get penciled in, they still may not have much cause for celebration. “The medical oncologist of the future might be more of a team leader,” says Michael Goldstein, chair of the ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) Workforce in Oncology Task Force and an oncologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “There will be less face-to-face time with a single patient.” Once a patient is treated, she will be more likely to be seen by a primary-care physician and less likely to receive follow-up care from an oncologist, who would need to focus on urgent or new cases, not continued care. It’s a potential trend that has only 15 percent of surveyed oncologists convinced it might alleviate the shortage. Study author Salsberg suggests this might be due to the fact that “many oncologists have already heard that there will be a shortage in primary-care doctors as well, or it’s because cancer care has gotten so complicated that you really do need to be seen by a specialist.”

The anticipated strain on the health care system by the demands of the boomer generation is daunting—particularly in the cancer fields. At present, there are 27 oncologists for every 100,000 Americans over the age of 65, and total patient caseloads per doctor are up. Meanwhile, the Census Bureau predicts the number of Americans over the age of 65 will double by 2030. Compounding the problem, the existing supply of oncologist providers is due to fall short by as many as 4,080 by the year 2020. (The study focuses on medical oncologists—usually the main caretakers of cancer patients as well as hematologist oncologists, who focus on cancers of the blood, and gynecological oncologists. There was little data available on pediatric, surgical and radiation oncologists, a smaller group that accounts for less than one quarter of all oncologists nationwide.)

The reasons for the dwindling number of oncologists are two-fold: more than half of today’s oncologists are close to retirement; at the same time there is a nationwide limit on the number of oncology fellowship training slots because of what critics argue were faulty projections in the past. “In the mid-90s, policy planners predicted there would be a surplus of 165,000 doctors in 2020,” says Dr. Richard Cooper, a senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, whose work is mentioned in the study, and who has been a leader in warning of an impending physician shortage across all fields for the past decade. “It was clear to me back then the basis for their projections were not valid. No one understood at the time that technological advances would increase demand for services, not the other way around.” For example, he says that in oncology, there is new technology for treating lung cancer. “Before that technology, it’s true, you wouldn’t need more doctors—that’s because, before the technology, people simply died.” He says there are about 10 million cancer survivors currently living in the United States.

The numbers suggest that a staggering number of patients may end up going without the specialized cancer care they need. According to the study, the demand for visits to oncologists will rise 48 percent by 2020 just as the population over 65 doubles, but that the actual number of visits will only increase by 14 percent, leaving a shortfall of 9.4 to 15.1 million visits. Even now, only 47 percent of cancer patients are seen by medical or gynecological oncologists. And by 2020, the study suggests that oncologists will be in “a state of acute shortage.”

Part of that shortage is due to a generational difference between oncologists themselves, with older doctors trumping their younger colleagues when it comes to productivity. While exact numbers were not given, the study reports that oncologists between 45 to 64 years of age see more patients per week than oncologists at the beginning of their careers. It takes several years to build up a practice, but lifestyle also plays a role. “Younger oncologists want more personal time and they have to balance family concerns. We don’t know yet if this is a historical pattern or a generational change,” Salsberg tells NEWSWEEK. He adds that preliminary data, so far unpublished, suggests that among female oncologists under 50, nearly a quarter are working only part time, especially those in private practice. Many younger professionals are also drawn to medical professions like dermatology or allergy and immunology, says fellow study author Goldstein, “where there is more control over schedule.” If the younger generation continues to have a lower productivity rate than older physicians, the shortage of visits could increase by yet another 4.8 million, the study warns.

Goldstein says that oncologists themselves are already feeling the shortage. “We started to feel the strains of this impending shortage in 2003. Some private practices have had to wait two to three years to recruit oncologists. If the practice is in San Francisco or somewhere desirable, there’s no problem. But if you’re in parts of the Midwest, the South, or an inner city, you get problems.”

A second phase of the study, which will focus on recommendations, will be presented by the end of the year. But it is already clear that it will be impossible to make up for the shortfall by just training more oncologists, due to both the present limits on fellowships, and the years it takes to train an oncologist. Instead, study authors are calling for a system-wide reform to what they call the looming crisis. Sixty-one percent of oncologists surveyed said a reduction of paperwork and regulations would increase efficiency. Other scenarios that could alleviate the shortage include a 50 percent increase in training slots, delayed retirement of older oncologists, and joint initiatives with non-oncologists, like primary-care physicians and hospice workers, to help pick up some of the workload. Cancer vaccines, like Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil and recent advances in treatment for kidney cancer might make a small dip in the cancer rate, says Dean Bajorin, co-chair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Workforce Implementation Working Group at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. At the same time, lifestyle factors that can increase the likelihood of malignancies, like increased obesity rates, might further burden the system.

Overall, the message here is clear. Whether you look at the large numbers of aging baby boomers, or simply consider that our country’s health and healthcare system have been and continue to steadily decline when it comes to growing old with grace and dealing with degenerative conditions . We may be living longer, but the rates of quality of life are going down, and the number of people using drugs and therapies to cope with their unique conditions is on the rise and the strain this has and will put on our government and current healthcare system is overwhelming. We need to become less dependent on the system and have more insight into our own health and take our health into our own hands. We truly are the foods that we eat - the quality and type of each food, what each has to offer, which ones to eat in combination with others, and how all this relates to health. Education is the key, and we all must learn that what most of our mothers told us long ago is more true today than ever. Things like portion control, exercising, staying physically and mentally fit as well as the vast options available with supplements and the benefits of each - again, singularly and in combination with others. We need to educate ourselves on prevention of disease through maintaining our health. We need to be aware of treatment options when faced with various diseases - research all available ways of managing or curing the disease, or increasing our quality of life during such a battle, especially utilizing alternative and complementary modalities. We, as a nation, need to rise up and demand from our elected representatives quality representation in our food and drinking supplies and quit waiting for the system to make it all better. Last time I checked, this system is by the people for the people. Not for big business or political gratification. We need to fix mistakes and be responsible for our own education. We must seek out our own abilities to affect what we can. We make statements everyday by things such as where we spend our money to eat and drink. If tomorrow no one bought a soda pop in the entire nation, don’t you think the coke companies would take notice? The same goes for fast food, cigarettes or anything else we as consumers purchase. As long as we purchase it they are likely to keep producing it. We have the power, not their misleading ad campaigns. Our current healthcare/government system will not be able to stand up under the pressure of the upcoming influx of baby boomers, degenerative diseases, and overall lack of health it will soon be presented with. Take control of your own lives. Be your own answer!

In the fight against breast cancer, researchers are discovering the benefits of regular exercise before and after the dreadful diagnosis.

By Carolyn M. Kaelin, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S., and Francesca Coltrera

Newsweek

March 26, 2007 issue

Four times a week, Anne Rinn, 28, a psychology professor in Bowling Green, Ky., whose mother died of breast cancer, goes to kickboxing, aerobics or Pilates classes. Liz Usborne, a 64-year-old breast-cancer survivor, lobs tennis balls over the net and circuit-trains at a women’s gym near her home in Bonita, Calif. The thread binding them? Concern about getting—or surviving and thriving after—breast cancer.

The American Cancer Society estimates that this year, 241,000 women will learn they have breast cancer and 40,000 women will die of it. Fortunately, a growing list of effective therapies developed during the past decade has helped extend lives, one reason that deaths from breast cancer have been dropping slowly since 1990. Living among us are more than 2 million women who have undergone breast-cancer treatments.

Modern miracle drugs like Tamoxifen and Raloxifene routinely cut risk for breast cancer in women whose medical histories or genes make them especially vulnerable to it. But reams of research also suggest that exercise—an activity as old as the human race—substantially reduces the odds of ever getting the disease, lengthens survival and considerably enhances quality of life for women with breast cancer.

Scientists don’t completely understand why exercise is so important, but they’re actively looking for answers. Roughly two thirds of all breast cancers are considered estrogen-positive; that means that the hormone estrogen fuels their growth. The rest are estrogen-negative. Many experts believe regular exercise lowers the amount of estrogen circulating through the body in the bloodstream. So for certain types of breast cancer, less estrogen equals less fuel. Exercise also pares off hormonally active fat tissue. Fat manufactures a substance called Aromatase that converts hormones known as androgens to estrogen. After menopause, when the ovaries stop cranking out high levels of estrogen, this hormonal cascade becomes the major source of estrogen in a woman’s body.

Recently two large, carefully designed studies suggested exercise may work through more than just hormonal mechanisms linked to estrogen. In a study published last month in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers speculated that exercise might affect tumor aggressiveness. The researchers found that long-term moderate or strenuous activity over a lifetime cut risk for developing estrogen-negative invasive breast cancers (though not estrogen-positive cancers). Since fewer therapies are effective against estrogen-negative cancers, that’s heartening news. Some earlier research on exercise suggests it lowers risk for estrogen-positive cancers, too. Scientists are also looking beyond estrogen at the effects exercise has on insulin, Leptin and certain growth factors.

Regular exercise early in life, particularly around puberty, and exercise vigorous enough to suppress other reproductive hormones may make a difference, too. A 2005 multicenter study on lifetime activity matched more than 4,000 white and black breast-cancer survivors with controls. Researchers found a 20 percent decrease in breast-cancer risk for the most versus least active women.

After a woman is diagnosed, exercise can dramatically lengthen survival and lower the odds of another tumor. For up to 14 years, the Nurses’ Health Study tracked nearly 3,000 participants diagnosed with breast cancer. Researchers found that recurrence rates and deaths from breast cancer (and from all causes) dipped 26 to 40 percent among those who exercised most, compared with their sedentary peers. Brisk walking or equivalent energy-burning activity for three to five hours a week—about 30 minutes a day—netted the biggest benefits. But even being active for one to three hours a week reduced risk to some degree.

Excess pounds lower the likelihood of survival after breast cancer. But for many women, maintaining a healthy weight is often a struggle, especially during treatment. Chemotherapy or radiation can make women feel too tired to exercise. Steroids given to help ease certain side effects of chemotherapy prompt a ravenous appetite. Nausea can lead to almost continuous nibbling of comfort foods to settle queasy stomachs. Some anticancer medications that work by tampering with hormones may have a hand in weight gain, too. One such hormonal drug is Tamoxifen, which keeps estrogen from entering breast cells by blocking receptors atop the cells that allow access. Studies have yet to confirm a connection, but many women on Tamoxifen complain of watching the scale inch upward. No matter what the root cause is for weight gain, exercise of all sorts helps burn calories. And paradoxically, for those who feel too wiped out to fit exercise in, some evidence shows light to moderate activities may actually alleviate treatment-induced fatigue.

Doctors once believed upper-body resistance training was apt to trigger the chronic swelling and discomfort of Lymphedema in women treated for breast cancer. Lymph is a thin, milky fluid that collects in spaces between cells. Carry-ing germ-battling immune cells, it seeps through a lacy network of channels in the body before draining into the circulatory system. Lymphedema occurs when lymph backs up, often in an arm or sometimes in the torso, after surgery or radiation alters lymph channels. Several recent studies suggest that a gradual approach and proper precautions make resistance training unlikely to raise the risk of developing Lymphedema or worsening it if it already exists.

That’s important news. Resistance training helps reverse the muscle loss and fat gain called Sarcopenia that often follows chemo-therapy and hormonal therapy. It’s helpful in other ways, too. Osteoporosis, which sets the stage for life-altering bone fractures, may be hastened by certain anticancer treatments. Chemo-therapy, for example, sometimes pushes women into early menopause by pre-maturely shutting down their ovaries. Since estrogen helps protects bones, losing it speeds bone-thinning, particularly in the spine and hips, which are especially vulnerable to fractures. Also known to contribute to osteoporosis is a class of breast-cancer drugs called aromatase inhibitors that cut off the most plentiful supply of estrogen after menopause by interrupting the process that converts androgens into estrogen. Resistance training slows bone loss and may even strengthen bones.

Quality of life counts, too. In clinical trials, moderate to vigorous exercise programs notched up progressively to 45-minute sessions at least three times a week eased anxiety and depression, enhanced mood and self-esteem, and helped counter fatigue.

Thus far, there are few studies of exercise in women with advanced breast cancer, although early evidence suggests that physical activity offers benefits here, too, such as less fatigue. More rigorous studies investigating links between breast cancer and exercise are underway. Don’t settle back to await developments, though. Rise from your reading and head out for a walk.

Kaelin is on the faculty of Harvard Medical School and the staff of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. She and COLTRERA, a Boston-area medical writer, are coauthors of “The Breast Cancer Survivor’s Fitness Plan” (McGraw-Hill, 2006) and “Living Through Breast Cancer” (McGraw-Hill, 2005).

Review and meta-analysis of several studies led researchers from several institutions to determine that an increased daily intake of vitamin D may significantly correlate with reduced incidences of colorectal and breast cancer.

The breast cancer study pooled dose-response data from two earlier studies of 1,760 subjects. Subjects with the highest serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, or 25(OH)D (50 nanograms per milliliter), had a fifty percent lower risk of breast cancer compared to those with the lowest blood concentrations; less than or equal to 10 nanograms per milliliter.

The colorectal cancer meta-analysis looked at five studies of 1,448 Caucasian subjects. The authors estimate a two-thirds reduction in incidence with serum concentrations of 46 nanograms per milliliter, corresponding to a daily intake of 2,000 IU of vitamin D3.

The researchers state the best way to achieve these concentrations is a combination of diet, supplements and 10 to 15 minutes per day in the sun.

(Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2006.12.007 and American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 3, Pages 210-216)

January 11, 2007

CHICAGO — Federal approval of a clinical trial on intravenous vitamin C as a cancer treatment lends credence to alternative cancer care, U.S. researchers said.

Cancer Treatment Centers of America said it won Food and Drug Administration approval to begin the trial, a move the Illinois-based hospital group said adds credibility to its research into alternative methods for cancer medical care, the Chicago Tribune said Thursday. It is the first FDA-approved trial for CTCA.

Just a few patients will be eligible, said Christopher Lis, the firm’s vice president of research and development.

“Only patients who have exhausted all other conventional treatment options are eligible to receive the therapy,” Lis said.

The first phase will be to determine the optimal dose for the patients and to learn whether the treatment is safe and can be tolerated, Lis said. Additional studies over several years would be needed to demonstrate whether it is effective.

Earlier studies conducted with vitamin C supplements administered orally did not to demonstrate a clinical benefit to cancer patients.

Cancer Treatment Centers of America, with facilities in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, provides traditional and alternative treatment for cancer patients.