Month: November 2008

(NaturalNews) What do rat poison and the HPV vaccine have in common? The answer is a hazardous chemical known as sodium borate. Savvy readers may wonder what a toxin that is commonly used to kill rats is doing in the ingredient list for the HPV vaccine that is currently being pushed on girls as young as nine and is even being considered for men and boys. Unfortunately, the answer isn't very comforting, especially for new U.S. residents for whom the HPV injection containing sodium borate is now mandated.

Sodium borate, a boric acid salt also known as borax, has many common uses. In addition to its use as a rat poison, it is also used in laundry detergents, cosmetics, enamel glazes, flame retardants, and buffer solutions in chemistry. However, sodium borate also has antifungal properties, which means that its probable reason for being in the vaccine is to act as a preservative.

Sodium Borate Banned as Food Additive

Sodium borate is used as a food additive in some countries, but it is now outlawed in many places. For example, one Australian government recall site notes: "Product is Borax (sodium borate) which is a non permitted food additive and is harmful to health." So, if it's "harmful to health," why is it being added to the HPV vaccine?

No Longer Used in Medical Preparations

The U.S. National Library of Medicine states in an article that boric acid is "no longer commonly used in medical preparations." It's a good thing, too, considering that the U.S. National Library of Medicine also reports that this substance used to be used to disinfect and treat wounds and that individuals "who received such treatment over and over again got sick, and some died." In fact, the U.S. National Library of Medicine provides the number for Poison Control for people exposed to this chemical and notes that treatment for those exposed to it may include gastric lavage (stomach pumping), dialysis, and liquids by mouth or IV.

Sodium Borate Poisoning Symptoms Mimic Reactions to HPV Vaccine

Sadly, the information about sodium borate gets even scarier. Another government website article states that exposure to sodium borate can cause convulsions and other ill health effects. Interestingly enough, young girls who receive the HPV vaccine have reported similar symptoms to those that appear in cases of sodium borate poisoning. This particular government site provides the following warning regarding this chemical: "WARNING! HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED, INHALED OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT." Given this information, is sodium borate really something that should be injected into humans? This is something the reader should carefully consider, along with the previously reported information, before choosing to receive the controversial HPV vaccine.

(NaturalNews) A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.

The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the human body's innate ability to heal itself – potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can't blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body's own immune system.

Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer.

The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer at every age.

"Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years," the authors stated in their report. "This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

The researchers also conclude that their findings "provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."

This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally — at least in some people — by the body's own innate defenses.

"Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report. "Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course."

(NaturalNews) Drugs like Avastin that are used to treat some cancers are supposed to work by blocking a vessel growth-promoting protein called vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF. With VEGF held in check, researchers have assumed tumors wouldn't generate blood vessels and that should keep malignancies from growing.

For their study, researchers at the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) in La Jolla, replicated the action of anti-angiogenesis drugs by genetically decreasing VEGF levels in mouse tumors and inflammatory cells in several types of cancers, including pancreatic cancer. The research team, headed by David Cheresh, Ph.D., professor and vice chair of pathology at UCSD, also used drugs to inhibit VEGF receptor activity. The results? In every single instance, blood vessels were not weakened but, instead, were made normal again. And in some cases, tumors increased in size..

In a prepared statement for the press, Dr. Cherish said: "We've discovered that when anti-angiogenesis drugs are used to lower the level of VEGF within a tumor, it's not so much a reduction in the endothelial cells and losing blood vessels as it is an activation of the tumor blood vessels supporting cells. It appears that the drugs, in shutting down VEGF activity, are actively maturing blood vessels, causing them to become stable and more normal, as opposed to reducing blood vessels."

Although the findings of this study might sound like a death knell for drugs like Avastin, Dr. Cheresh claims the fact anti-angiogenesis drugs can increase tumor size and give them stronger blood vessels could be a good thing. According to his press statement, he suggests chemotherapy drugs may be able to get to cancer tumors more directly through the stronger blood vessels created by the anti-angiogenesis drugs. "We have to test available regimens and perhaps restructure the way that we give drugs," he said. "We may be giving the right drugs, but we may not be giving them in the right order. We're just beginning to understand how it works."

That could be seen a huge understatement. After all, Dr. Cheresh's own research shows the supposedly cancer fighting anti-angiogenesis drugs appear to do exactly the opposite of what scientists thought they did.

Dr. Cheresh also points out in his media statement that the results of the Nature study demonstrate how a specific host's response to cancer is critical in terms of susceptibility to therapy. "It's not just about the therapy, but also what the host does in response to the cancer that makes a difference whether a tumor lives or dies, and if it's susceptible to a drug or not. We can change the host response to the cancer," he stated.

While Dr. Cheresh is talking about using drugs to influence how the host responds to cancer, natural health advocates have pointed out for decades that strengthening the body's own defense system and avoiding cancer-promoting and potentially health-weakening toxins, foods and behaviors can help keep cancer at bay. Mainstream medicine appears to be recognizing the efficacy of this strategy more and more, too.

For example, a new review sponsored by the American Cancer Society just published in CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians studied potential pharmaceutical, dietary, surgical, and other approaches to reducing the risk of breast cancer . The conclusions show that risk reduction strategies should focus primarily on lifestyle factors — specifically, eating a healthy diet, drinking alcohol moderately or not at all, and maintaining a healthy weight. In other words, natural, common sense healthy living that strengthen the "host" appear to be the best ways to prevent cancer in the first place.

(NaturalNews) How many times have you heard it mentioned that sugar causes cancer, that cancer patients should avoid sugar, or that sugar is the favorite food of cancer cells? The truth is, this goes beyond mere hearsay or traditional knowledge; there is actually a large volume of scientific evidence available which shows the link between sugar and increased cancer risk. Here, ten such studies are summarized.

A study conducted by Harvard Medical School found that women who ate the most foods with high glycemic load – the glycemic index, or GI, of a food gives an idea of how quickly sugar (more specifically, glucose) levels in the blood rise after eating it – had almost three times the risk of getting colorectal cancer in the future, compared with women who ate lesser amounts of such foods.

Typically, processed foods made from refined grains and refined sugar, including candy bars, cakes, cookies and other snacks, are high glycemic foods

"We find a very straightforward and clear association between high-glycemic foods and the risk of colorectal cancers," said lead researcher Simin Liu, MD, ScD.

This study involved some 40,000 American women.

2. Colorectal Cancer in Men (United States)

Another study at Harvard University found that middled aged men whose diets tended to increase blood sugar levels quicker, i.e. those who ate more high GI foods, had a 32% higher chance of getting colorectal cancer over a period of 20 years.

The study, which involved more than 50,000 men, also found that this effect seemed to be more pronounced in heavier men.

3. Breast Cancer in Women (United States)

The Women's Health Study found that those who consumed a diet which raised blood sugar levels more had a 135% higher risk of getting breast cancer in the 7-year period of the study.

4. Endometrial Cancer in Women (United States)

The Iowa Women's Health Study looked at some 23,000 post-menopausal women. It found that those who consumed a diet which raised blood sugar levels more had a 46% higher risk of getting endometrial cancer over a period of 15 years.

5. Endometrial Cancer in Women (Italy)

Another study in Italy carried out on women with endometrial cancer found that those who consumed a blood sugar-raising diet had a 110% higher risk of getting this disease.

6. Pancreatic Cancer in Women (United States)

In a study which followed almost 90,000 US women participating in the Nurse's Health Study for a period of 18 years, it was found that women with a high glycemic load intake had a 53% higher risk of getting pancreatic cancer. A similar increase in risk, 57%, was observed for fructose intake.

Further, the study also found that women who were heavy and with low levels of physical activity experienced greatly enhanced risk. Women in this group with high glycemic load had 2.67 times the risk of their counterparts with low glycemic load intake!

7. Pancreatic Cancer in Men and Women (Sweden)

A study carried out by Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and Central Hospital in Västerås, Sweden followed almost 78,000 Swedish men and women with no previous diagnosis of cancer or history of diabetes for a mean period of more than 7 years. The subjects were aged from 45 to 83 years.

The study found that consuming added sugar, soft drinks, sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit increased the risk of pancreatic cancer.

Those who ate the most sugar had a 69% higher risk compared with those who ate the least sugar. The corresponding higher risk for soft drinks was 93%, while for sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit it was 51%.

The study concluded that "high consumption of sugar and high-sugar foods may be associated with a greater risk of pancreatic cancer".

8. Prostate Cancer in Men (Italy)

An Italian study examined the habits of men aged 46 to 74 who had prostate cancer and compared their dietary choices to similar men who did not contract the disease. The study found that those men whose diets were more likely to increase blood sugar levels had a 57% higher risk of getting prostate cancer.

9. All Cancers in Men and Women (Korea)

A large study carried out by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea tracked almost 1.3 million Korean men and women, aged between 30 and 95 years, for a period of 10 years.

The study found that those with the highest fasting glucose levels were more likely to die from all types of cancer combined. For the men, the strongest link was found for pancreatic cancer, while significant links were also reported for oesophagus, liver and colorectal cancers. For the women, the strongest associations were for liver and cervical cancers.

All in all, besides being more likely to die from cancer, those with highest fasting blood glucose levels also had higher risk of developing cancer.

And obesity had a part to play, too. "This study provides more information on glucose intolerance, an emerging cause of cancer. It points to increased cancer risk as another adverse consequence of rising obesity around the world," concluded Sun Ha Jee, leader of the study.

Another thing to note – the study participants were said to be substantially leaner than the typical population in Western countries, as mentioned by the study team.

10. Various Cancers in Men and Women (Sweden)

A study carried out at Umea University Hospital in Sweden looked at almost 65,000 people in northern Sweden for a mean period of 8 years.

The study found that women with the highest blood sugar levels had a higher risk of getting cancer before the end of the study period. This group of women also had higher risk of endometrial cancer, while those below 49 years of age had higher risk of breast cancer. In addition, both men and women who had the highest levels of blood sugar had higher risks of pancreatic cancer, urinary tract cancer, as well as malignant melanoma.

These results led Par Stattin, MD, PhD, part of the study team, to state that keeping blood sugar levels within the normal range "may reduce cancer risk".

Why Does Cancer Love Sugar? – A Study Suggests Why

A study team at Duke University School of Medicine has suggested a possible reason why cancer cells like sugar so much.

Basically, according to the researchers, in healthy cells, certain growth factors regulate their metabolism and cell survival. When these growth factors are removed, there is loss of glucose uptake and metabolism, and the cells die.

However, they found that cancer cells are able to maintain glucose metabolism by using a protein called "Akt", which promotes glucose metabolism. This prevents cell death, even when the growth factors are not available.

What We Need to Take Note of

So, then, based on the findings of the abovementioned studies, can we conclude that sugar feeds cancer? The truth is, sugar feeds all cells in our bodies. It therefore cannot be all bad.

Two things we must take note of, however, is the amount and the type of sugar which we consume.

Consuming too much sugar causes our bodies to produce excessive amounts of insulin. And insulin itself encourages the growth of cells, something which is good for healthy cells, but not cancerous cells.

The other key point is to avoid simple sugars. Broadly speaking, processed and refined foods, including soft drinks, sugary beverages, candy bars, cakes, other desserts, as well as other snacks, contain high amounts of simple sugars. These are high GI foods, which can cause insulin levels to spike.

On the other hand, natural sugars found in fruits and vegetables are so much safer and better for health. Even fresh fruit juice, despite its high sugar content, is great for health. On top of that, healthy whole foods come with a wide concoction of vitamins and minerals, something which refined sugar is totally devoid of.

Simple Sugars Cause Obesity

When one' insulin levels suddenly increase, the level of sugar in the blood can suddenly crash. This, then, can cause one to feel intensely hungry. People then eat more, and feel hungry again soon, and the cycle keeps going.

Further, because of their lack of nutrition, foods with a lot of simple sugars are basically empty calories. When the body's nutritional needs are not met, it continues to crave for food, which again explains the non-stop eating and feasting.

The more refined sugars one eats, the fatter one becomes, yet the more malnourished one can be. It is a huge paradox, and a dangerous one at that.

Conclusion

Refined sugar is devoid of important nutrients, causes obesity, causes cavities, and also increases cancer risk. If you or a loved one are battling cancer, or are serious about avoiding the disease, you may want to take note of your intake of this common yet dangerous substance.

"We have known that watermelon has citrulline," Patil said, "[but] watermelon has more citrulline in the edible part than previously believed."

This is significant because the body converts citrulline into arginine, another amino acid that functions as a precursor to nitric oxide. Nitric oxide, in turn, plays a critical role in the dilation of blood vessels and the process of penile erection.

The drug Viagra functions primarily by targeting the nitric oxide signaling pathway in the penis.

Patil hopes that other researchers will begin to directly study watermelon's effects on erection. But some are skeptical.

Just because nitric oxide is required for an erection, "that doesn't mean eating something that is rich in citrulline will make enough arginine that it will lead to better penile erections," said Irwin Goldstein, editor-in-chief of The Journal of Sexual Medicine and a former consultant for companies that make erectile dysfunction drugs.

"The vast majority of Americans produce enough arginine," he said. "Men with erectile dysfunction are not deficient in arginine."

Patil acknowledges that he doesn't know how much watermelon a man would need to eat to have an effect. Knowing that a four-ounce serving of watermelon contains approximately 150 milligrams of citrulline does not tell researchers what effects that much citrulline will have in the body, he said.

He did note that in a 2007 study, participants were able to increase their arginine levels 11 percent in three weeks by drinking three eight-ounce glasses of watermelon juice per day.

(NaturalNews) Commercially bred bees used pollinate greenhouse crops may be spreading diseases to wild populations, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Toronto and published in the journal PLoS ONE.

In the current study, researchers observed that commercially bred bumblebees used to pollinate bell peppers, cucumbers and tomatoes in southern Ontario were regularly flying in and out of the greenhouses where the crops were kept. They then constructed a mathematical model to predict what it would look like if the commercial bees were spreading infections to wild bumblebees.

The model predicted that the rate of infection would slowly increase among wild bees living near the greenhouses over the course of weeks or months, until reaching a critical threshold leading to widespread rapid transmission affecting nearly all bees in the area. Rates of infection would drop off, however, with increasing distance from the greenhouses.

The researchers then captured a random sample of wild bumblebees from around the greenhouses and conducted thorough tests for pathogens. They found that infection rates of a certain intestinal parasite (Crithidia bombi) matched the pattern predicted by the model.

"All of the different species of bumblebees that we sampled around greenhouses showed the same pattern: really high levels of infection near greenhouses and then declining levels of infection as you moved out," researcher Michael Otterstatter said. "It was quite obvious that this was coming from the greenhouses and it was a general adverse effect on the bumblebees."

Approximately 50 percent of wild bumblebees in the vicinity of the greenhouses were infected with Crithidia bombi. Levels of other parasites were normal.