A High Folate Intake Reduces Breast Cancer

NOTE: Blog posts are on M-W-F.  

In a study released August, 2007, involving 11,699 postmenopausal women aged 50 years or more, demonstrated an inverse association between folate intake and breast cancer risk. Those with the highest dietary folate intake, including supplements, had a 44 percent reduced risk of invasive breast cancer. Similarly, those with the highest intake had a 64 percent reduced risk of invasive breast cancer compared to those with the lowest quintile of intake.

COMMENT: Many medications can deplete folate from the body; Here are a few: birth control pills, anti-inflammatory drugs like methotrexate and sulfasalazine (Azulfidine); metformin (Glucophage) used in the treatment of diabetes; antibiotics like trimethoprim (Bactrim) and the anti-convulsant drug phenytoin (Dilantin). 

 

Researchers have reported an association between alcohol consumption and breast cancer in women who drink one alcoholic beverage a day. Drinking more two to five drinks per day may be associated with a rate of breast cancer that is about 40 percent higher than the rate for non-drinkers. Perhaps the link is that alcohol depletes folate.

Fortified foods such as breads and cereals are dietary sources of folic acid. Other good sources are dark green leafy vegetables (such as asparagus and broccoli), green peas, green beans, pinto beans, and brewer’s yeast. Orange juice, beets, dates and avocado are also good sources. Poor sources meats, chicken, milk, and most fruits. In addition, daily supplementation with B-complex can add more energy and health benefits overall, including support to your adrenal.

False Positive Mammograms

Thermography has been dismissed as unreliable by conventional physicians, claiming that the tool produces too many false positives.  Research since the 1970s has reported a false positive rate for thermography ranging from 6 to 13 percent.

Mammograms have a similar false positive rate.  How many times are women called back for “extra views” or had a biopsy that turned out to be benign (by the way, eight of ten biopsies are normal.) Those extra tests are a result of a false positive mammogram interpretation. 

Radiologists vary greatly in their ability to accurately interpret mammograms.  The most accurate interpretations are by physicians who have at least 25 years of experience, interpret 2,500 to 4,000 mammograms annually and have a practice focused on screening. However, the overall range of accuracy is frightening. 

In a study published in 2005 by U.S. Army Medical Research for its “Era of Hope Project,” radiologists (on average) accurately identified only 77 percent of cancers. For individual radiologists, the detection rate ranged from 29 percent to 97 percent. Think about that: Some physicians only found about 30 percent of tumors on a mammogram.  

Researchers further reported that while the average false positive rate for mammograms was 10%, the overall false positive reporting rate for individual physicians ranged from 1 percent to almost 30 percent.  A meta-analysis of 117 studies published April, 2007 in Annals of Internal Medicine  reported that false-positive results are 20% to 56% after 10 mammograms.

COMMENT: For thermogram nay-sayers, the facts speak for themselves. Thermography is at least as good as, and in many cases, provides more information than mammograms. In addition, it is painless and uses no radiation.

The bulk of the research involving breast thermography was conducted in the 1980s. State-of-the-art, ultra-sensitive infrared cameras and sophisticated computer software has evolved to detect, analyze, and produce high-resolution images.  The problems encountered with first generation infrared camera systems, such as improper detector sensitivity (low-band), thermal drift, calibration problems, analog interface, etc. have been solved for almost two decades.  Think about the difference between black and white televisions and the new plasma screen TVs. Consider the evolution from the first computers that were housed in rooms to the handheld gigabyte gadgets common today. Technology progresses in every area; tools used today for breast thermography are vastly improved over equipment used twenty years ago. The results showed its usefulness then; the new tools make it even more important now. 

It’s time to put this technology in its rightful place as an important tool for breast health. Using thermography will redefine the meaning of Early Detection.

Breast implants, mammograms and thermograms

Breast augmentation surgery is the most common cosmetic surgery in America. It is estimated that 4 million women have undergone breast implant surgery in the U.S., approximately 500,000 more will do so in 2007. According to the MayoClinic.com, breast implants may decrease the ability of mammograms to identify cancer because they can obscure a tumor. Depending on which studies are cited, it’s estimated that implants can obscure more than 50 percent of breast tissue.

The difference comes down to where they are placed. Those inserted below the chest muscle (about 50%) are less likely to obscure tissue than those placed above.  Both silicone and gel implants look like white “blobs” on the xray and may prevent a view of the tissue below.  In all cases, instead of the two standard views taken for each breast, four views are taken…adding up to more radiation.  The risk of rupture, although small, is real. Between June, 1992 and October of 2002, there were 41 cases of implant ruptures during mammography were reported to the FDA. 

COMMENT: The use of thermography in women who have breast implants is an area that deserves intense investigation. I have seen several women in my office who refused mammograms because they had implants. One woman’s thermogram was very abnormal and with much coaxing, she was convinced to obtain a mammogram. Unfortunately, she was found to have cancer in both breasts. 

Could this have been detected earlier if she had obtained regular mammograms? Quite possibly. But if women are going to refuse mammograms (for whatever reason, not just because they have implants), at the very least, they should get a thermogram. We need to redefine the meaning of Early Detection.

Breast Cancer Genes

On July 12, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article reporting that women who possess the BRCA genetic mutations, known as “breast cancer genes” do not have a higher risk of dying than patients with no BRCA mutations.  The study was completed by researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and the University of Toronto.

“With the new study, we can offer the reassurance that in spite of a bad profile of prognostic factors in carriers, their survival rate is actually at least as good as for noncarriers,” said Technion researcher Dr. Gad Rennert.

COMMENT:  BRCA1-associated breast cancers tend to occur in younger women, are high-grade and are not estrogen-receptor positive, all factors which are associated with a poorer outcome. In addition, BRCA mutations are more common among women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. About 2 percent of all Ashkenazi women carry a mutation in one of these two genes.  Some 60 percent of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi. According to The New England Journal, learning that you have one of the genes in the presence of breast cancer adds little to a clinician’s ability to select a therapy or predict the course of disease.

 

If you have not been tested for the BRAC genes, you may decide to opt out of this testing.  Since the presence of the gene doesn’t make any difference in survival *if* you contract breast cancer, then why would you want to identify a ticking time bomb living in your chest? If you believe (even a little bit) that you get what you think about, knowing that you have a cancer gene in your breast tissue just might attract the cancer.

 

The real risk of developing breast cancer if you have one of the genes has been inconsistent in the medical literature. Despite this, many women are opting for testing and bilateral “preventive” mastectomies if they have the gene. While that may give some peace of mind, for others, a better option is close follow up and a plan of action to keep breasts healthy.  Here are some suggestions:

• Appeal to your insurance company to pay for a baseline MRI, especially if you are of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. 

• Have semi-annual clinical breast exams and thermograms instead of only annual exams.

• Take breast healing supplements, such as DIM, calcium-d-glucarate and tumeric.

• Use a rebounder 10 to 15 minutes a day to keep your lymphatic channels flowing.

• And think about healthy breasts instead of worrying about getting cancer: Remember the Law of Attraction…you get what you dwell upon.

 

Breast Cancer Incidence Linked to Mammogram Use

A study released on August 1 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute confirms that the rise in breast cancer incidence throughout the 1980s and early 1990s was consistent with the simultaneous adoption of screening  mammography. 

In addition, the new research fortifies the findings of the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative: The rising and falling trends of breast cancer throughout the same period parallel the increasing, then declining, use of menopausal hormone therapy.

COMMENT: Synthetic hormones have long been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.  Another study released this month in The British Medical Journal reinforces that the risk of breast cancer, stroke and blood clots from synthetic HRT outweighs its ability to prevent hip fracture, heart disease and colon cancer. (Source: BMJ, 2007; 335: 239-44)

Since the 1990s, radiation from routine mammograms has been known to pose significant risk of initiating and promoting breast cancer.  Contrary to conventional assurances, radiation from a mammogram isn’t minimal.  Typically, a screening mammogram consists of two views of each breast, one from above and one from the side. Images are obtained by compressing breast tissue between two plastic plates.  If an abnormality is found, a diagnostic mammogram will be necessary which involves additional views.  Each view can expose the breast to as much as 0.2 rad per x-ray (a rad is a measure of radiation dose).

All this radiation is cumulative over time and each 1.0 rad of exposure increases the risk of breast cancer by 1 percent.  (Add up the total number of mammograms and views you’ve had to estimate your additional risk.) The breast tissue of pre-menopausal women, ages 40 to 50, is highly sensitive to radiation, possibly increasing the risk even more.    

The American Cancer Society believes the use of regular mammograms, MRIs,  and clinical breast exams for early detection is the best opportunity for reducing the breast cancer death rate. Notice that their focus is on reducing the death rate, not in reducing the incidence.

Instead of developing higher resolution mammograms and MRIs, research dollars should be spent on finding the causes of breast cancer and then developing programs to avoid them.  The focus needs to shift from cancer survival to an overall rate of breast cancer.  Eliminating the use of synthetic HRT is a step in the right direction…but more needs to be done. Early detection just isn’t good enough and won’t change the future health for women.

Breast self exams

Women are told to exam their breasts but rarely are the instructed on how to do it. This short video clip is a good review on the technique.

COMMENT:  For women who have lumpy or hard breasts, more training is required. Knowing how to do the exam may not be enough to identify tissue changes. But if fingers can be trained to read Braille, fingers can be trained to identify differences between normal and abnormal tissue.

 

At OsteoMed II, we use the Mammacare method. We have a program where women can learn how to do self-exams using this technology which I believe is the best examination method available. You can make an appointment with Sandi for training.  

Most OB/Gyn officer have breast models. Ask to practice on them. Or better, find a Mammacare specialist in your area who can teach your fingers what to feel.

Men get breast cancer too

Last week, SanAntonio.com ran a story on James Barlow, a 79 year old retired district judge, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer.  When his two daughters were diagnosed with breast cancer, a blood test revealed that Barlow had the cancer gene, BRCA2. Women have this defective gene have about a 50 percent risk of contracting cancer; in men, it is nearly 70 percent.

After discovering a lump on his chest wall, breast cancer was diagnosed. His treatment involved a mastectomy and radiation for his Stage III disease.

COMMENT: Men, especially those with a female family member who has had breast cancer, deserve thermographic screening too. Consider the anatomic difficulties of attempting a mammogram on a man; MRI and ultrasounds are the only diagnostic options. And these can only be utilized after a mass had been identified. This is not “early detection” for the sake of prevention. With thermography, entire breast area can be observed and may have identified areas of concern before Mr. Barlow found his non-resolving lump. 

Opting Out of The Mammogram Club

Susan Reimer, a columnist at The Baltimore Sun newspaper, wrote that she failed to get her annual mammogram because ”the prospect of getting a very sensitive part of my body pressed between two pieces of cold glass — the greater the pressure the greater the accuracy — had driven me under an afghan and in front of a soap opera.” After her commentary was published, by her own admission, she was scolded.

Everyone from radiologists to cancer survivors let her have it for having second thoughts about the procedure.  It’s a very interesting column; well worth the read.

COMMENT: I don’t understand the hysteria women have over annual mammograms. It’s almost like, if you don’t get one, you are ostracized from The Club. The same thing that happened to Ms. Reimer happens to most of us if we dare to say we’re skipping the torture this year.

Yes, mammograms can “find cancer early.” But when are women going to demand widespread use of a technology that can identify concerns years before cancer is identified on a mammogram? When are women going to insist that the millions raised by running races be used to identify and elimate the Cause?

One reason given for not investigating The Cause is that “breast cancer is complex.” Well, doing heart transplants and disconnecting Siamese twins is complex too, yet we have found successful ways to perform those medical miracles. The truthful answer is that there’s no money in cause:  The Money Is In The Medicine, Not The Cure.

Woman need to push for tools–like thermography and others–that can redefine the meaning of Early Detection. Let’s make all the fund raising activity count for something that can make a substantial difference in Women’s Health. 

“Meet Tracy Craig”…

On August 1, 2007, WMBB, Channel 13 news from Panama City, Florida carried the following story, “Meet Tracy Craig”"

Tracy Craig is 41 years old and was diagnosed with DCIS earlier this year. She had no history of breast cancer in her family and did not notice any symptoms. Tracy discovered her DCIS through a routine mammogram. She has undergone 8 weeks of radiation and a lumpectomy. Fortunately, Tracy has recovered and is now a “survivor.” She is advising women to get their mammograms.

COMMENT: Problem is, a normal mammogram is not necessarily a clean bill of health.

A better idea? Get a thermogram. Tracy is typical of many women between 30 and 50 years when mammograms are either not recommended, or give equivocal results due to density.  With a thermogram, Tracy may have identify problems up to 7 years before  her official cancer diagnosis…when she was in ther 30s…giving her time to take proactive steps toward breast health.

Better than becoming a “Survivor,” be a breast cancer avoider! Thermography: Redefining the meaning of “early detection.”

The Environment, Chemicals and Breast Cancer

A groundbreaking research study, coordinated by the non-profit Silent Spring Institute  and recently published by the American Cancer Society found that synthetic chemicals are playing a large role in the skyrocketing incidence of breast cancer throughout the world. 

The study identified 216 man-made chemicals—including those found in everyday products like pesticides, cosmetics, dyes, drugs and gasoline (and diesel exhaust)—that have been shown to cause breast cancer in animals. Researchers believe these substances, many of which “mimic” naturally occurring hormones (estrogens)  are to blame for the increasing prevalence of human breast cancer.

Further proof exists that the environment plays a large role breast cancer risk.  Breast cancer in adopted children parallels the risk of the family they grew up in, not that of their biological family, data originating from meticulously kept medical records throughout Scandinavian countries. 

COMMENTS: The break down of tissues and DNA by chemicals takes years. That is why finding a breast lump is not a five-alarm fire: that mass has been growing for six to seven years before it was identified on a mammogram. The three important –and simple–things a woman can do to lower risk of breast cancer are exercise, keep well hydrated, and avoid unnecessary chemicals.

• Exercise: decreases estrogen load and reduces chemical-accumulating fat
• Water: keeps lymphatics open and allows the body to eliminate chemicals more easily
• Avoid chemicals: women are famous for slathering on gels, creams and lotions. Anything that is applied topically goes directly into your body. If you can’t pronounce it, you shouldn’t put it on your skin.

Keeping healthy can be a little more work, but it doesn’t have to be hard.

actual code on site