Monday, March 24, 2014

Glucocorticoids: Why You Should Avoid This Popular Pet Drug

Glucocorticoids: Why You Should Avoid This Popular Pet Drug

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Link between father’s age and schizophrenia discovered REDISCOVERED!

March 22, 2014, 8:04 pm

Children born to older fathers have a higher than normal risk of developing schizophrenia later in life, Swedish scientists said on Friday.

They suspect that accumulating mutations in the sperm of older men add to the risk of their children suffering from the psychotic disorder.

"There is an association between paternal age and the risk of schizophrenia in the offspring," Professor Finn Rasmussen, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told.

Other researchers have suggested such a link before but Rasmussen said his study of 700,000 people in Sweden is the largest and most significant.

"On a population level this is important because of the increasing paternal age of the population," he added.

Career demands and other factors have resulted in couples postponing having children. In England and Wales the average paternal age has increased from 29.2 in 1980 to 32.1 in 2002.

Rasmussen and his team, who reported their research in the British Medical Journal, estimated that the three-year age increase in the last 20 years could result in 12-15 percent more cases of schizophrenia.

The causes of schizophrenia are unknown. Scientists believe it affects chemicals in the brain and that there is a biological link which can predispose a person to the disease.

It affects about 24 million people worldwide, mostly between ages 15 to 35. Although it is a treatable illness, more than 50 percent of sufferers do not receive appropriate care, according to the World Health Organization.

Schizophrenia usually begins in the late teens and early 20s and is characterized by hallucinations, delusions, hearing voices and changes in behavior.

In their study of people born between 1973 and 1980, Rasmussen and his colleagues analyzed hospital admissions for schizophrenia and other disorders between 1989 and 2001. They calculated that, overall, 15.5 percent of schizophrenia cases in the study group may have been due to the patient having a father who was over 30 years at the birth.

The risk increases with age, so a child born to a man of 50 could have a higher risk than one whose father was 30. "The occurrence of mutation in sperm increases with age," Rasmussen added.

Monday, March 03, 2014

Children of older men have greater risk of mental illness

03 March 2014
Appeared in BioNews 744
Children born to fathers who are 45 years old or older are more likely to develop serious mental illness than children born to fathers in their early twenties, a large-scale study comparing siblings suggests.
The researchers posit accumulation of genetic mutation in older men's sperm as a possible reason for the increased risk, which is greater than that suggested by previous studies. Children born to older fathers were 25 times more likely to develop bipolar disorder, for example.
Dr Brian D'Onofrio, the study's first author, from Indiana University, USA, said: 'The findings in this study are more informative than many previous studies'. The research was performed in collaboration with two Swedish research centres. It drew on the medical records of more than 2.6 million people (about 90 percent of the population) born in Sweden between 1973 and 2001, to more than 1.4 million fathers.
'First, we had the largest sample size for a study on paternal age. Second, we predicted numerous psychiatric and academic problems that are associated with significant impairment. Finally, we were able to estimate the association between paternal age at childbearing and these problems', said Dr D'Onofrio.
The researchers could 'control for many factors that other studies could not', he added.
Compared across all the people in the study, paternal age made little difference to mental health. But when the researchers compared the health of siblings born several years apart, clearer findings emerged. Bipolar disorder showed the strongest association with advancing paternal age, followed by ADHD, autism and psychotic disorders. Children born to older men also had lower scores at school and completed fewer levels of education overall, but these trends were less pronounced.
The researchers suggest the increased incidence of psychiatric problems is due to a higher rate of novel mutations in sperm cells of older fathers. Unlike women, who are born with all their egg cells, men produce sperm throughout their lives. In older men, the sperm-producing mechanism may work less well than in young men, leading to more genetic changes in the resulting sperm, some of which may cause problems.
Opinions of other experts, not involved in the study, vary. Speaking to The Guardian, Professor Jennifer Roff, of the City University of New York, said she was unconvinced by the link to mutations in sperm. 'I'm not saying that there is no possible genetic role for paternal age', she said, 'I simply think that this could be confounded with other environmental factors like birth order'.
But Professor Patrick Sullivan, at the University of North Carolina, commented positively on the research. He told The New York Times: 'This is the best paper I’ve seen on this topic, and it suggests several lines of inquiry into mental illness. But the last thing people should do is read this and say, "Oh no, I had a kid at 43, the kid’s doomed". The vast majority of kids born to older dads will be just fine'.
The study was published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.

BBC News | 27 February 2014

The Guardian | 26 February 2014

EurekAlert! (press release) | 26 February 2014

New York Times | 26 February 2014

JAMA Psychiatry | 26 February 2014

Sunday, March 02, 2014

The Benefits of Curcumin in Cancer Treatment

March 02, 2014 | 241,319 views

Click HERE to watch the full version.
By Dr. Mercola
Cancer is one of the leading causes of death. What if there was a safe, natural herb that could work for nearly every type of cancer?  
According to Dr. William LaValley, who focuses most of his clinical work on the treatment of cancer, curcumin—a derivative of turmeric, and the pigment that gives the curry spice turmeric its yellow-orange color—may fit the bill. It's a natural compound that has been extensively researched, and has been found to have numerous health applications.
Like me, Dr. LaValley was trained in general medicine, but he's devoted a considerable amount of time to understanding the biochemical pathways that can support health nutritionally.
In 1982, he participated in an exchange program to the People's Republic of China, where he got first-hand experience with the ancient practices of traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture.
"One of the important messages that I learned there was that natural products, natural molecules, from plants and animals that are already available in nature, have been used by the Chinese for at least hundreds, probably thousands of years. That deeply changed my perspective in the world of medicine," he says.
"I came back to medical school, and thereafter, looked at how I could integrate the perspective of conventional pharmaceutical administration as well as natural extract, natural product administration."
Curcumin Has Potent Anti-Cancer Activity
In 2005, he took a 75 percent sabbatical from clinical practice to immerse himself in the science of molecular biology, specifically the molecular biology of cancer. He also devoted approximately 9,000-9,500 hours building a relational database from the PubMed literature about the molecular biology of cancer.
One important lesson he learned through that venture is that the understanding of molecular biology can be applied across a range of diseases and symptoms described in the scientific literature. That knowledge can be applied by searching PubMed and other related databases, looking at the relevant molecular pathways involved.
"In learning the molecular biology of cancer pathways, and in learning that what the evidence actually shows for the effect of natural product extracts on various relevant molecular targets in various cancers,

We see that there's actually quite a large amount of evidence that supports using various molecules, natural products, and pharmaceuticals that are already approved and that have been around for a long time to affect anti-cancer activity along that pathway at that target. That's called molecularly targeted anti-cancer treatment, and it's widely practiced in oncology today.
What's not widely practiced is the use of the natural products for the molecularly targeted anti-cancer activity. I provide that for my patients because the evidence base suggests and supports the use of these treatment recommendations."
Curcumin—A 'Universal' Cancer Treatment?
Interestingly, curcumin appears to be universally useful for just about every type of cancer, which is really odd since cancer consists of a wide variety of different molecular pathologies. You wouldn't necessarily suspect that there would be one herb that would work for most of them. Dr. LaValley explains how he came to this conclusion:
"I went back to the literature and looked at how I can support the decision-making process and the recommendations that I'm making for treatment from the scientific literature, including literature that goes from the treatment of humans with oral products like pharmaceuticals or natural products.
This is where I learned about this molecule called curcumin, all the way down to its use in animals and then its use in test tubes or petri dish... One of the amazing things about curcumin is that this molecule has some profound anti-inflammatory activity and has activity in many molecular targets.
There are molecules that are in the cells, and those molecules interact with each other along certain pathways or tracks. The traffic of that interaction, the signals that are transferred in that trafficking of information in the molecules, presents many different targets or molecular-specific complexes."
As explained by Dr. LaValley, whether the curcumin molecule causes an increase in traffic or activity of a particular molecular target, or a decrease/inhibition of activity, studies repeatedly show that the end result is a potent anti-cancer activity. Furthermore, curcumin does not adversely affect healthy cells, suggesting it selectively targets cancer cells. Research has also shown that it works synergistically with certain chemotherapy drugs, enhancing the elimination of cancer cells.
Curcumin Destroys Cancer in Multiple Ways
Curcumin has the most evidence-based literature1 supporting its use against cancer of any nutrient, including vitamin D, which also has a robust base. Interestingly, this also includes the metabolite of curcumin and its derivatives, which are also anti-cancerous.
Curcumin has the ability to modulate genetic activity and expression—both by destroying cancer cells and by promoting healthy cell function. It also promotes anti-angiogenesis, meaning it helps prevent the development of additional blood supply necessary for cancer cell growth. As for its effect on molecular pathways, curcumin can affect more than 100 of them, once it gets into the cell. More specifically, curcumin has been found to:
Inhibit the proliferation of tumor cells
Decrease inflammation
Inhibit the transformation of cells from normal to tumor
Inhibit the synthesis of a protein thought to be instrumental in tumor formation
Help your body destroy mutated cancer cells so they cannot spread throughout your body
Help prevent the development of additional blood supply necessary for cancer cell growth (angiogenesis)
Why Whole Turmeric Is Ineffective
Unfortunately, while there's some curcumin in whole turmeric, there's not enough in the regular spice to achieve clinically relevant results. The turmeric root itself contains only about three percent curcumin concentration. Another major limitation of curcumin as a therapeutic agent is that it is poorly absorbed. When taken in its raw form, you're only absorbing about one percent of the available curcumin.
"The natural product industry has developed a standard of a 95-percent concentration of curcumin," Dr. LaValleyexplains. "Initially, years ago, that was what we had available for patients. Even at that, taking a 95-percent concentration orally in a capsule, only one percent of that could be absorbed. In order to get amounts of curcumin in the bloodstream that are reasonable to have therapeutic effect, people had to take large amounts of curcumin...
In searching the literature, I found that a way to change that, to dramatically increase the bioavailability, is actually a very simple process of bringing water to a boil, putting those capsules or some dry powder (I use it by the teaspoon), and boiling it for 10 to 12 minutes. That increases the amount of curcumin dissolved in water from that one-percent amount up to 12 percent or so. That amount is a vast number of curcumin molecules that are now in a bioavailable or absorbable form."
However, while this is certainly doable, it's really inconvenient, and great care must be taken to prevent staining your clothes and kitchen surfaces. It's a significant enough problem to have been dubbed "yellow kitchen syndrome," as it's virtually impossible to get the stains out. Turmeric is in fact an excellent dyeing agent for fabrics, rendering them a yellow-orange color.
Convenience and efficiency has driven many of the changes in the forms of curcumin in later years. Because it's a fat-loving or lipophilic molecule, many newer preparations now include some sort of oil or fat, which improves its absorbability and bioavailability. Such preparations typically have seven to eight times higher absorption than the raw, unprocessed 95-percent-concentration of dry powder. There are also newer sustained release preparations, which Dr. LaValley prefers and recommends.
The Connection Between Cancer and Insulin Resistance
If you are overweight, or have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and/or diabetes, then in all likelihood insulin and leptin resistance is a factor. Insulin and leptin resistance is also a very common factor among cancer patients. From my perspective, a ketogenic diet (with or without intermittent fasting) would be a prudent treatment strategy to resolve that underlying problem. Once you've normalized your insulin and leptin, you don't necessarily need to maintain a ketogenic diet, if you find it too restrictive.
"I agree with you that a ketogenic diet is really appropriate in many cases, probably the significant majority of cases," Dr. LaValley says. "It's been known for probably 80 years or longer that solid tumors, and some of the blood cancers, are sugar-loving. Another term is that they are addicted to sugar.
I use [a] PET scan to demonstrate to patients that here is objective proof that the tumors you have in your body are sugar-avid. They're taking up sugar at a rate much higher than the other regular healthy cells. I want to drive home that message, so that they are motivated to alter their diet to have a low, low carb intake, causing their body to generate additional nutrient supply molecules called ketones...
What that means is that we're trying to provide an anti-cancer antagonistic pressure on the cancer cells by reducing the amount of sugar that's readily available for uptake by reducing the easily available sugar in the diet and compensating for the nutrient reduction and sugar [reduction] by increasing healthy fats."
Cutting Down on Protein May Be Particularly Useful for Cancer Patients
It would also be prudent to assess your protein intake. Many Americans eat far more protein than required for optimal health. The reason for this is because your body can actually use excess protein (you do need some) to stimulate carbohydrate production. Excess protein also stimulates the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways, which are useful for building muscles but can be detrimental when treating cancer, as mTOR is a pathway that increases cellular proliferation. (Interestingly, the pharmaceutical drug Metformin, which has anti-cancer activity, also inhibits mTOR, and it turns out that curcumin has a very similar effect.)
The formula I recommend for assessing how much protein you might need in your diet is from Dr. Rosedale, which calls for one gram of high-quality protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or about half a gram per pound of lean body mass.
As an example, if your body fat mass is 20 percent, your lean mass is 80 percent of your total body weight. So, if your total weight is 200 pounds; you would then divide 160 by 2.2 to convert pounds to kilograms and come up with 72.7 grams of protein. If you are doing vigorous exercises or are pregnant, you can add up to another 25 percent or another 18 grams in this illustration to increase your total to 90 grams per day.
More Information
Dr. LaValley is available for consultation on a wide variety of health challenges, including cancer, and he's licensed to practice medicine in the US and Canada. His medical clinic is located in Chester, Nova Scotia, where he sees patients. Americans can fly there either through Chicago or Newark. His office number is 902-275-4555. He also spends time in Austin, Texas, where he conducts research. When there, he's available to consult for other physicians and their patients.
"For instance, if a patient has pancreatic cancer and the physician wants to implement one of the protocols that I provide, I will do a consultation with that physician's patient and then make recommendations to that physician for implementation,"  he explains. "In that way, patients are able to get it locally without having to travel to Nova Scotia...
It's a challenge right now because there's so much information that's not readily known by so many physicians that they become afraid. I think one of the biggest issues, certainly in US and Canada, is that when a physician wants to administer one of these natural products, or several of them, as well as some of the off-label pharmaceuticals for their anti-cancer usage, they are afraid of recriminations or disciplinary actions.

That is, I think, very unfortunate, because the evidence base does exist for it, and it's consistent with the way that other types of conventional medicine or practice using off-label pharmaceuticals as well. I think that the most important movement that needs to occur is for the patients to recognize their own value in the decision-making process and demand that they have access to these therapeutic choices because they're available, they're supported in the evidence base, and they have the right to ask for them rather than to just accept whatever the physician is otherwise offering in the conventional realm."

Saturday, March 01, 2014

His Holiness the Dalai Lama - Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2014

Friday, February 28, 2014

Philip Glass - The Kiss (HD)

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Largest, Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit

February 26, 2014 | 174,841 views

By Dr. Mercola
It appears once again, major industry defenders will remain in complete denial and do anything possible to put profits before people.

An annual mammogram is the conventional go-to "prevention" strategy for breast cancer. But researchers increasingly agree that mammography is ineffective at best and harmful at worst.
Unfortunately, breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, even if it means ignoring the truth.
Several studies over the past few years have concluded that mammograms do not save lives, and may actually harm more women than they help, courtesy of false positives, overtreatment, and radiation-induced cancers.
The latest study to reach this conclusion is also one of the longest and largest. As reported by the New York Times:1
"One of the largest and most meticulous studies of mammography ever done, involving 90,000 women and lasting a quarter-century, has added powerful new doubts about the value of the screening test for women of any age.
It found that the death rates from breast cancer and from all causes were the same in women who got mammograms and those who did not.  And the screening had harms: one in five cancers found with mammography and treated was not a threat to the woman's health and did not need treatment such as chemotherapy, surgery or radiation."
Where's the Wisdom in Using a Cancer Screen That Causes Cancer?
Besides the harm caused by overtreatment, the wisdom of radiating your breasts year after year, for decades, is questionable at best, considering the fact that ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
Results published in the British Medical Journal2 (BMJ) in 2012 show that women carrying a specific gene mutation called BRCA1/2 are particularly vulnerable to radiation-induced cancer.
Women carrying this mutation who were exposed to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 were twice as likely to develop breast cancer, compared to those who did not have the mutated gene.
They also found that the radiation-induced cancer was dose-responsive, meaning the greater the dose, the higher the risk of cancer developing. The authors concluded that:
"The results of this study support the use of non-ionizing radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations."
I've warned against the use of routine mammograms for years, despite vehement attacks from radiologists and individuals hell-bent on attacking me. In the final analysis, it's been worth the legal fees I've had to pay to defend myself against these attacks over the years, as ever-mounting research repeatedly confirms my stance.

At this point, the controversy is pretty much settled—at least if you take the published research into account.  To all of my opponents out there who have attacked me for my opinion regarding mammograms, I know they will remain in denial.  The big lie must continue to be told to avoid the guilt associated with the damage done. The attacks only make us better at defending controversial views.
Biggest Mammography Study to Date Finds No Benefit
The featured study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ),3  included a five-year screening period, with a total follow-up period of 25 years. The women, aged 40-59, were randomly assigned to receive either five annual mammography screens, or an annual physical breast examination without mammography.
Over the course of the study, 3,250 of the women who received mammography were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared to 3,133 in the non-mammography group. Of those, 500 women in the mammography group, and 505 in the control group, died from the disease.
However, after 15 years of follow-up, the mammography group had another 106 extra cancer diagnoses, which were attributable to over-diagnosis. As previously explained by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, the term "overdiagnosis" in cancer medicine refers to:4
"...a tumor that fulfills all laboratory criteria to be called cancer but, if left alone, would never cause harm. This is a tumor that will not continue to grow, spread and kill. It is a tumor that can be cured with treatment but does not need to be treated and/or cured."
The authors of the featured study concluded that:5
"Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available. Overall, 22 percent of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial."
More Studies Disputing the Value of Routine Mammograms
The rate of overdiagnosis (22 percent) is virtually identical to that found in a 2012 Norwegian study,6 which found that as many as 25 percent of women are consistently overdiagnosed with breast cancer that, if left alone, would never have caused them any harm. Other studies that support the findings of the featured study include the following:
  • In 2007, the Archives of Internal Medicine7 published a meta-analysis of 117 randomized, controlled mammogram trials. Among its findings: rates of false-positive results are high (20-56 percent after 10 mammograms)
  • Similar results were found in a 2009 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database Review,8 which found that breast cancer screening led to a 30 percent rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which actually increased the absolute risk of developing cancer by 0.5 percent.  The review concluded that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout a 10-year period, the life of just ONE woman was prolonged, while 10 healthy women were treated unnecessarily.
  • Another Norwegian study,9 published in 2010, concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening.
  • Research published in The Lancet Oncology in 2011,10 described the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are aggressively treated and/or removed before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone.
  • This study however, demonstrated for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a higher cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings.
False Negatives—Another Hazard of Mammography
Besides false positives that lead to unnecessary treatments, there's also the risk of getting a false negative, meaning that a life-threatening cancer is missed. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), mammograms miss up to 20 percent of breast cancers that are present at the time of screening. If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in your breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves taking a small amount of tissue from your breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present.
The problem is that early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be very hard to diagnose, and there are no diagnostic standards for it. Furthermore, pathologists doing the readings are not required to have specialized expertise. As Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times in 2010:11
"There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin."
It's important to realize that a negative mammogram cannot be equated with a clean bill of health. All a negative mammogram can tell you is that IF you do have cancer, it hasn't grown large enough yet to be detected. This is particularly true for women with dense breast tissue. Forty-nine percent of women have high breast tissue density,12 and mammography's sensitivity for dense breasts is as low as 27 percent13—meaning about 75 percent of dense-breasted women are at risk for a cancer being missed if they rely solely on mammography. Even with digital mammography, the sensitivity is still less than 60 percent.
Women Faced with Increasingly Confusing Choices
The featured study has reignited the debate about whether or not an annual mammogram is a wise choice for most women. Complicating matters further is the fact that, over the past few years, a number of medical groups have created divergent recommendations with regards to if and when you should get a mammogram. 
In November of 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force, a federal advisory board, revised their cancer screening recommendations,14 saying annual mammograms weren't necessary for women under age 50 and that screenings were recommended only every two years after that. The panel based the new guidelines on data indicating that mammography does more harm than good when used on younger women.
Many cancer groups refused to adopt these guidelines however, and still recommend women over the age of 40 to be screened annually. This includes the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the American College of Radiology.
In 2011, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) threw women for yet another loop when it changed its guidelines to include MORE screening compared to its previous recommendations. ACOG had previously recommended annual mammograms starting at age 50. As of 2011, it began urging women to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40. As stated by the New York Times:15
"[T]he days of one-size-fits-all screening may be ending. Now patients and their doctors will face much more nuanced choices, based on each woman's risk for breast cancer and her feelings about the prospect of unnecessary treatment. 'The balance between benefits and harms is more and more up in the air,' said Dr. Russell P. Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 'Reasonable people will disagree.'"
3D Tomosynthesis—The Crazy Alternative That Increases Your Risks Even Further
Unfortunately, instead of admitting the flaws and inherent dangers of mammography, the industry unveiled a "new and improved" type of mammogram in 2011 called 3D tomosynthesis, which actually exposes you to even HIGHER doses of radiation than a standard mammogram. What's worse, they also recommend you continue receiving your traditional 2D mammogram when you get tomosynthesis, thereby multiplying your radiation exposure even further. According to surgeon Dr. Susan Love,16 tomosynthesis exposes you to about twice the amount of radiation compared to a standard mammogram.
According to one 2010 study,17 annual screening using standard digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20–25 cases per 100, 000. Meaning, annual mammograms CAUSE 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test. Further increasing—perhaps doubling—the number of fatal breast cancer caused as a direct result of the screening procedure itself can hardly be called progress.
Cancer Prevention Begins with Your Lifestyle Choices
Mammograms are portrayed as the best form of "prevention" a woman can get. But early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. And cancer screening that does more harm than good can hardly qualify as "your best bet" against becoming a cancer statistic! I believe the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strictly applying basic, common-sense healthy lifestyle strategies, such as the ones below.
  • Avoid sugar, especially fructose, and processed foods. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Refined fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible. This automatically means avoiding processed foods, as most are loaded with fructose (typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup, HFCS).
  • Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should probably be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects. Ideally, your levels should reach this point by exposure to the sun or a safe tanning bed, not oral vitamin D.
  • Limit your protein. Newer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathways. When these are active, cancer growth is accelerated. One way to quiet this pathway is by limiting your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or roughly a bit less than half a gram of protein per every pound of lean body weight. For most people this ranges between 40 and 70 grams of protein a day, which is typically about 2/3 to half of what they are currently eating.
  • Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
  • Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and restricting carbs to mostly fiber vegetables. Also make sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
  • Exercise regularly. One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks. It's also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die. Studies have also found that the number of tumors decrease along with body fat, which may be an additional factor. This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer.
  • Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
  • Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
  • Get plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
  • Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer. It actually has the most evidence-based literature18 supporting its use against cancer of any nutrient, including vitamin D. For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.19 It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption tips here. Newer preparations have also started to emerge, offering better absorption. For best results, you'll want to use a sustained release preparation.
  • Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
  • Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
  • Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)
  • If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative. 
  • Avoid BPA, phthalates, and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk.
  • Make sure you're not iodine deficient, as there's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,20 author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.
  • For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are far too high.
  • Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame-broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted, or fried—has been found to increase cancer risk as well.
This is not an exhaustive list. There are many other strategies that can be useful as well. One excellent resource is Dr. Christine Horner's book, Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer, which contains research-proven all-natural approaches for protecting against and treating breast cancer.
Experts Tell Radiologists to Stop Lying About Mammograms
Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice on CNN explains why the American College of Radiology two main arguments against the Canadian National Breast Screening Study are wrong as he explains in the video below


Debating the value and effectiveness of mammograms
Premiere Date: February 12, 2014
Arm Yourself with Information So You Can Take Control of Your Health
Many women are still unaware that the science backing mammograms is sorely lacking. Instead of being told the truth, women are guilt-tripped into thinking that skipping their yearly mammogram is the height of irresponsibility. It can be hard to stand your ground against such tactics. After all, you expect health professionals to know what they're talking about, and to give you the best advice possible.
When it comes to cancer prevention however, many doctors are just as brainwashed as the average person on the street, having succumbed to industry propaganda that downplays or ignores research conflicting with their profit-based agenda. Mounting research shows that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms than are saved by them. In light of such facts, avoiding an annual mammogram is hardly an irresponsible act. Ditto for saying "no thanks" to 3D tomosynthesis, which exposes you to an even greater amount of cancer-causing radiation for virtually no benefit.

Please understand that there are other screening options, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have a right to utilize those options. Also remember that in order to truly avoid breast cancer, you need to focus your attention on actual prevention and not just early detection.

Anam Thubten and others teaching at the Vajrayana Foundation

Older Fathers Linked To Higher Risk Of Cognitive, Behavioral Issues In Their Offspring

February 27, 2014


Image Credit:
Brett Smith for – Your Universe Online
A large new study conducted by a team of American and Swedish researchers has found a connection between paternal age and the risk of a child developing cognitive or behavioral problems.
The finding is particularly alarming considering the recent trend of couples putting off raising a family to pursue their careers or other interests.
“We were shocked by the findings,” said study author Brian D’Onofrio, an associate professor of psychology and brain sciences at Indiana University Bloomington.
“The specific associations with paternal age were much, much larger than in previous studies,” D’Onofrio added. “In fact, we found that advancing paternal age was associated with greater risk for several problems, such as ADHD, suicide attempts and substance use problems, whereas traditional research designs suggested advancing paternal age may have diminished the rate at which these problems occur.”
Published in JAMA Psychiatry, the study was based on a massive data set: everyone born in Sweden from 1973 to 2001. The study team found that a child born to a 45-year-old father is 3.5 times more likely to develop autism, 13 times more likely to develop ADHD, twice as likely to develop a psychotic disorder, 25 times more likely to receive a diagnosis for bipolar disorder and 2.5 times more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior or a substance abuse problem when compared to a child with a 24-year-old father.
For most of these issues, the odds of development increased steadily with paternal age, indicating there is no age threshold at which childbearing suddenly becomes riskier.
The study team compared siblings in their research, which considers factors for children living in the same house to be very similar. When they did this, they found that the connections with advancing paternal age were much stronger than for the general population. The team also compared the development of first-cousins to control for sibling relationships and birth order.
The authors also considered parents’ highest level of education and income, because older parents are considered to be more mature and financially secure. However, the findings were extremely consistent, as the connections between mental problems and advancing paternal age continued.
“The findings in this study are more informative than many previous studies,” D’Onofrio said. “First, we had the largest sample size for a study on paternal age. Second, we predicted numerous psychiatric and academic problems that are associated with significant impairment. Finally, we were able to estimate the association between paternal age at childbearing and these problems while comparing differentially exposed siblings, as well as cousins.”
“These approaches allowed us to control for many factors that other studies could not,” he concluded.
The conclusions of the study are particularly troubling as the average age for having a child has been escalating for both men and women over the last four decades. For men the average age is three years older than it was in 1970, according to the study researchers. They noted that the implications of this trend are yet to be understood.
“While the findings do not indicate that every child born to an older father will have these problems,” D’Onofrio said, “they add to a growing body of research indicating that advancing paternal age is associated with increased risk for serious problems. As such, the entire body of research can help to inform individuals in their personal and medical decision-making.”

Source: Brett Smith for - Your Universe Online

Narcotic Pain Killers Deadly