Re: Breast Cancer stats in Marin County explained

[Guest guest]

Women have been drinking two glasses of wine in Italy, France and other

countries for ages! THAT is no basis for breast cancer!

Most breast cancer seems to have appeared in the post world war II years in

Western countries where an ENORMOUS amount of milk products were consumed!! This

has been publicized very often! The breast cancer rates in Northern Europe, in

very white places like Scandinavia zoomed in the post war years, so it is no

coincidence perhaps about Marin County! Breast cancer is an accumulation of fat

(even some of these currently popular wire underbras, worn to excess, could

provoke that!!). Breast feeding seems to counter against developing breast

cancer!

Clearly taking hormones, and birth control, and especially among women who never

have children, could provoke breast cancer. But two glasses of wine per day?

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

That too much alcohol is damaging, has been known for centuries.

Why do such studies ignore certain, pertinent facts, indeed neglect to EVEN

include them?

Why, for example, when speaking of lung cancer, does no one say that American

indians have been smoking for centuries and did not die of lung cancer? or that

the French, who still smoke a lot, have a lower lung cancer rate than in the US,

but are rapidly catching up, as lifestyles turn more industrial, including air

conditioning, processed and fast food, overweight, begin to become more

prevalent? It is indeed possible that in some cases and incidences of certain

diseases, it is an accumulation and or the COMBINATION of environmental, and

lifestyle factors that can help tendencies to thrive.

This is why all this gets SO tiring!! Carole Anne

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/12/04 2:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Carolean06@... writes:

>

> Most breast cancer seems to have appeared in the post world war II years in

> Western countries where an ENORMOUS amount of milk products were consumed!!

There are european countries where huge amounts of milk and cheese are

ingested. The Fench are known for their magnificant cheeses. This has been

going

on for centuries. What I had read recently is that it is the process of

homogenizing that makes the milk a culprit in cancer.

[Guest guest]

Explanations such as this often have some sort of basis in fact, but

they are sadly amusing because of their shallowness. I would suggest that a

main fault here is the treatment of alcohol consumption as an independent

variable. Could not a higher alcohol consumption be associated with higher

stress or depression in this community? (Stress may double the risk of

breast cancer:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=446731 )

Would not alcohol consumption covary with use of tranquilizers? (see

below)

Could it be that these ladies choose the more idiotic forms of

alternative medicine -- 70% of breast cancer patients do go alternative:

http://dailynews./h/nm/20000127/hl/ala_1.html

Could it simply be the ubiquitous birth control pills: (article below)

Could it be a function of obesity? (article below)

There are so many other factors, e.g., low dietary cysteine/cystine,

working under fluorescent lights, mammograms, too many diagnostic CT scans

with 100-250 times the CXR radiation, who knows maybe those too tight

's Secret bras (I've heard complaints), or too much fog (see below).

(articles below)

***************************************

Sunshine link to lower cancer rate

Scientists have discovered sunnier climes are linked to lower deaths from

common cancers.

Researchers looked at death certificates across 24 US states and found

sunlight is associated with a reduced risk of breast and colon cancer.

The 11-year study, published in the journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, focuses on the likelihood of dying from breast,

ovarian, colon, prostate and skin cancer, compared with different levels of

exposure to the sun.

As expected, the authors, including Dr Michal Freedman of the National

Cancer Institute in Bethesda, found there are higher numbers of deaths from

skin cancer in the sunnier areas.

However, death from the other four cancers was significantly lower among

people living in very sunny climates.

Working outdoors in a very sunny environment was also associated with fewer

deaths from breast and colon cancer.

The geographical regions of greatest sunlight shows the strongest

relationship. This finding was independent of the amount of physical

activity required for the job.

Laboratory experiments have previously shown that vitamin D, generated by

exposure to sunlight, appears to slow down the speed of cancer cell

division, including breast and colon cancer cells.

But scientists remain unsure about the exact mechanisms behind any

potentially protective effect.

Dr Freedman says much remains to be explored about the biology of sunlight

and cancer but that the findings warrants additional study on the effects of

sun on cancer.

Story filed: 00:07 Thursday 4th April 2002

******************

Obesity and Breast Cancer

The international study comparing obese women to women of normal

weight confirms what doctors have long suspected - that fat cells release

the hormone into the blood, allowing it to help turn normal cells cancerous.

" There was clear hypothesis that the mechanism for the effect of

obesity might be high blood estrogen levels, but no one has been able to

test that directly, " said Dr. Tim Key of the Cancer Research U.K.

Epidemiology Unit at Britain's Oxford University.

The researchers, who report their findings in this week's issue of

the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, said they are good news -

giving women a way to reduce their risk of breast cancer.

" Women's risk is affected by many fixed factors - a family history of

the disease, the number of children they have, the age they have their

children, when they start their periods and when they stop, " Key said.

" But obesity is something that women have a level of control over.

Put simply, maintaining a healthy weight avoids extra breast cancer risk for

these women. "

Key and colleagues in Britain, Italy, Japan and the United States

studied eight different groups of women who were past menopause - when the

risk of breast cancer rises dramatically.

None of the women had cancer and none were taking hormone replacement

therapy when their blood samples were first taken. The researchers then

watched the women for between two and 12 years to see which ones developed

breast cancer.

MORE WEIGHT, MORE CANCER

During the study, 624 women developed breast cancer. Hormones in

their blood were compared with the hormones from 1,640 cancer-free women of

the same age.

The more the women weighed, the higher their risk of cancer. And the

more the women weighed, the higher their levels of a form of estrogen called

estradiol.

A woman who was obese, with a body mass index of 30 or more, had an

18 percent higher chance of developing breast cancer than a woman with a BMI

of 25 - just on the border of being overweight.

THE INTERNATIONAL STUDY comparing obese women to women of normal weight

confirms what doctors have long suspected - that fat cells release the

hormone into the blood, allowing it to help turn normal cells cancerous.

" There was clear hypothesis that the mechanism for the effect of

obesity might be high blood estrogen levels, but no one has been able to

test that directly, " said Dr. Tim Key of the Cancer Research U.K.

Epidemiology Unit at Britain's Oxford University.

The researchers, who report their findings in this week's issue of

the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, said they are good news -

giving women a way to reduce their risk of breast cancer.

" Women's risk is affected by many fixed factors - a family history of

the disease, the number of children they have, the age they have their

children, when they start their periods and when they stop, " Key said.

" But obesity is something that women have a level of control over.

Put simply, maintaining a healthy weight avoids extra breast cancer risk for

these women. "

Key and colleagues in Britain, Italy, Japan and the United States

studied eight different groups of women who were past menopause - when the

risk of breast cancer rises dramatically.

None of the women had cancer and none were taking hormone replacement

therapy when their blood samples were first taken. The researchers then

watched the women for between two and 12 years to see which ones developed

breast cancer.

MORE WEIGHT, MORE CANCER

During the study, 624 women developed breast cancer. Hormones in

their blood were compared with the hormones from 1,640 cancer-free women of

the same age.

The more the women weighed, the higher their risk of cancer. And the

more the women weighed, the higher their levels of a form of estrogen called

estradiol.

A woman who was obese, with a body mass index of 30 or more, had an

18 percent higher chance of developing breast cancer than a woman with a BMI

of 25 - just on the border of being overweight.

***************

Birth Control Pills Found To Raise Breast Cancer Risk

3-23-02

BARCELONA, Spain (Reuters) - Using the birth control pill can increase a

woman's risk of developing breast cancer, particularly if is she is still

taking it after the age of 45, scientists said on Saturday.

New research presented at the Third European Breast Cancer Conference

confirms the results of earlier, smaller studies which have shown the chance

of getting the disease rises by about 26 percent in women who have used oral

contraceptives compared to those who have not.

For women aged 45 and over the risk is doubled.

" It is a doubling in risk, " Dr. Merethe Kumle, of Community Medicine in

Tromso, Norway told the conference.

" It is clear that oral contraceptives increase a woman's risk of developing

breast cancer, particularly when they are used in the later period of

reproductive life, " she added.

Using data from a large lifestyle and health study, Kumle and her team

studied information on 103,027 women who were questioned about their

lifestyle, health and use of the pill in 1991/1992.

They followed the medical history of the women to December 1999 and found

1,008 cases of the disease. Most of the women had taken newer versions of

the pill which contain lower doses of hormones.

" I think the results from this study of Norwegian and Swedish women are very

interesting and confirm results from earlier studies of oral contraceptive

use, " Kumle said.

Early pregnancy, late menopause, postponing childbirth or not having

children are risk factors for breast cancer which affects about one million

women worldwide each year.

Studies have also shown that using the pill and hormone replacement therapy

(HRT) can increase the risk of the disease, although the risk decreases

after women stop taking the drugs.

Kumle stressed that the risk for younger women, under the age of 40, is very

low. Most breast cancer is diagnosed in women 50 years and older.

" We found a slightly increased risk of breast cancer among users of the

pill, but it is important to underline that young women using the pill are

not playing hazard with their health. As contraception, the pill should

still be the drug of choice for young women, " she added.

Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited.

*****************

The Causes Of Breast Cancer

By Montague

's Environment And Health News #723

http://www.rachel.org/home_eng.htm

5-20-1

WHAT CAUSES BREAST CANCER?

Breast cancer kills 46,000 women in the U.S. each year. On average, each of

these women has her life cut short by 20 years, for a total loss of about a

million person-years of productive life each year. Of course this huge cost

to society is heaped on even greater burdens, the personal anguish and

suffering, the motherless children, the shattered families.

The medical establishment dominated by male doctors pretends that the breast

cancer epidemic will one day be reversed by some miracle cure, which we have

now been promised for 50 years. Until that miracle arrives, we are told,

there is nothing to be done except slice off women's breasts, pump their

bodies full of toxic chemicals to kill cancer cells, burn them with

radiation, and bury our dead. Meanwhile, the normal public health approach

primary prevention languishes without mention and without funding. We know

what causes the vast majority of cancers: exposure to carcinogens. What

would a normal public health approach entail? Reduce the burden of cancer by

reducing our exposure to carcinogens. One key idea has defined public health

for more than 100 years: PREVENTION. But with cancer, everything is

different. In the case of cancer, prevention has been banished from polite

discussion.

Now a new, fully-documented book[1], by physician Janette D. Sherman,

http://www.lifesdelicatebalance.com/ , poses a fundamental challenge to all

the doctors and researchers and health bureaucrats who have turned their

backs on cancer prevention: " If cancers are not caused by chemicals,

endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and ionizing radiation, what are the causes?

How else can one explain the doubling, since 1940, of a woman's likelihood

of developing breast cancer, increasing in tandem with prostate and

childhood cancers?, " Dr. Sherman asks.(pg. x) And if exposures are the

problem, then ending exposures is the solution: " Actual prevention means

eliminating factors that cause cancer in the first place. " (pg. 31)

Dr. Sherman is a practicing physician who has treated 8000 patients over 30

years. Unlike most physicians, she possesses an extensive knowledge of

chemistry. Furthermore, she has become a historian by examining a large body

of medical and public health literature dating back to the 19th century. It

is this unique combination -- of historical view, knowledge of chemistry,

deep personal experience as a physician, and an ethical clarity that PRIMARY

PREVENTION is the proper policy -- that makes this book important and

compelling.

The book begins with two chapters emphasizing the similarities among all

living things that are made up of cells including humans, animals and

plants. Cells in every creature can go awry and start to grow

uncontrollably, a definition of cancer. Because all cell-based creatures are

so similar, what we learn from one can often tell us something useful about

another. For example, when we learn from the sonian Institution that

sharks get cancer from swimming in waters contaminated with industrial

chemicals, we learn (or SHOULD learn) something useful about our own

vulnerability to exotic chemicals.(pg. 9)

Turning to breast cancer, Dr. Sherman lists the known " risk factors " the

common characteristics shared by many women who get breast cancer: early

menarche (age at which menstruation begins); late menopause (age at which

menstruation ends); late childbirth and the birth of few or no children; no

experience breast-feeding; obesity; high fat diet; being tall; having cancer

of the ovaries or uterus; use of oral contraceptives; excessive use of

alcohol.

" What is the message running through all of these 'risks?' " Dr. Sherman

asks. " Hormones, hormones, and hormones. Hormones of the wrong kind,

hormones too soon in a girl's life, hormones for too many years in a woman's

life, too many chemicals with hormonal action, and too great a total

hormonal load. " (pg. 20)

Dr. Sherman then turns her focus to the one fully-established cause of

breast (and other) cancers: ionizing radiation, from x-rays, and from

nuclear power plant emissions and the radioactive fallout from A-bomb tests.

These, then, are the environmental factors that give rise to breast cancer:

exposures to cancer-causing chemicals, to hormonally-active chemicals, and

to ionizing radiation in air, food and water. How do we know the environment

air, food, water and ionizing radiation plays an important role in causing

breast cancer? Because when Asian women move from their homelands to the

U.S., their breast cancer rate soars. There is something in the environment

of the U.S. (and other western industrial countries) causing an epidemic of

this hormone-related disease. The medical research establishment likes to

call it " lifestyle factors " but it's really environment. Air, food, water,

ionizing radiation.

With this basic information in hand, Dr. Sherman then describes historically

and today the exposure of women in the U.S. to a flood of carcinogenic and

hormonally active chemicals, plus ionizing radiation.

Take common pharmaceutical products, for example. Canadian researchers have

demonstrated enhanced cancer growth in mice given daily HUMAN-EQUIVALENT

doses of three commonly-used antihistamines, which are sold under the trade

names Claritin, Histamil and Atarax.(pg. 21) Two years earlier the same

researchers had reported breast cancer promotion in rodents fed

clinically-relevant doses of antidepressant drugs, which are marketed as

Elavil and Prozac.(pg. 21) Millions of women in the U.S. are taking these

drugs today.

At least 5 million women in the U.S. are currently taking Premarin the most

often-prescribed form of estrogen (female sex hormone), to ease the

transition through menopause.(pg. 156) This is called " hormone replacement

therapy " and it is routine, recommended medical practice in the U.S. A

review of 51 studies of women taking hormone replacement therapy showed that

those who never took hormones had a breast cancer rate ranging from 18 to 63

per 1000 women. Those who took hormones for five years showed an excess of 2

breast cancers per 1000 women; after 10 years of hormone therapy the excess

breast cancer rate rose to 6 per 1000. The danger largely disappears 5 years

after discontinuing use.

Hormones are big business. Despite evidence that synthetic hormones caused

cancer in rodents and rabbits, American drug companies began selling

synthetic hormones in 1934 in cosmetics, drugs, food additives, and animal

feed. The best-known is DES (diethylstilbestrol) but there were and still

are many others. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1938 published a

study showing that DES caused breast cancer in rodents. Three years later,

in 1941, NCI published a second study confirming that DES caused breast

cancer in rodents. That year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

approved DES for commercial use in women.(pg. 91)

DES is 400 times as potent as natural estrogen and can be made for pennies

per pill. It was therefore phenomenally profitable and researchers

aggressively sought new uses. DES soon was being used to prevent

miscarriages, as a " morning after " pill to prevent pregnancies, and as a

breast-enlargement cream. It wasn't long before researchers discovered that

they could make chickens, cows and pigs grow faster if they fed them

hormones, and a huge new market for hormones opened up. As early as 1947, a

hormonal effect was reported among U.S. women who ate chicken treated with

growth hormones. (Chapter 7, note 55.) Between 1954 and 1973 three quarters

of all beef cattle slaughtered in the U.S. grew fat on DES.

In 1971, human cancer from DES exposure was confirmed and in 1973 DES was

banned from meat, so other growth hormones were substituted. Most recently,

of course, the U.S. FDA has allowed the U.S. milk supply to be modified to

increase the levels of a growth hormone (called IGF-1) known to stimulate

growth of breast cells in women. (pg. 101)

Still today most U.S. beef, chickens and pigs are intentionally contaminated

with growth hormones which is why Europeans refuse to allow the import of

U.S. beef. European scientists are asking the same question that Dr. Sherman

raises: " [H] ormones are administered to meat animals to promote growth and

weight gain. Why should humans expect to not respond similarly to such

chemical stimuli? " (pgs. 16-17)

Then of course there are dozens probably, in fact hundreds of household

chemicals and industrial byproducts that are hormonally active: pesticides,

cleansers, solvents, plasticizers, surfactants, dyes, cosmetics, PCBs,

dioxins, and so forth, that interfere with, or mimic, naturally-occurring

hormones. We are awash in these, at low levels, from conception until death.

How many growth-stimulating and cancer-promoting hormones can we ingest or

absorb through our lungs and skin before we feel the effects? No one in

authority is asking that crucial question, but Janette Sherman is asking it,

pointedly, and armed to the teeth with scientific evidence.

Then there is radioactivity. In 1984, a study of Mormon families in Utah

downwind from the nuclear tests in Nevada reported elevated numbers of

breast cancers.(pg. 65) Girls who survived the bombing of Hiroshima are now

dying in excessive numbers from breast cancer. Dr. Gofman has reviewed

22 separate studies confirming unequivocally that exposure to ionizing

radiation causes breast cancer. (See REHN #693.) Janette Sherman does a good

job of summarizing ecological studies showing that women living near nuclear

power plants suffer from elevated numbers of breast cancers. These studies,

by their nature, are suggestive and not conclusive. but there is ample

reason to believe that all nuclear power plants leak radioactivity routinely

into local air and water and that any exposure to ionizing radiation

increases a woman's danger of breast cancer. The only way to PREVENT this

problem is to end nuclear power permanently.

Why has the U.S. turned its back on the preventive approach to cancer? Dr.

Sherman returns to this question throughout her book. For example, in a

devastating chapter on Tamoxifen (a known cancer-causing chemical now

approved by U.S. FDA for use in women), she asks, " Why is our primary

well-funded National Cancer Institute not devoting its efforts to primary

prevention? Has breast cancer, like so many aspects of our culture, become

just another business opportunity? " (pg. 149)

In the end, Dr. Sherman reaches a conclusion about that question: " There is

a massing, in a few hands, of the control of production, distribution and

use of pharmaceutical drugs and appliances; control of the sale and use of

medical and laboratory tests; the consolidation and control of hospitals,

nursing homes, and home care providers. We are no longer people who become

sick. We have become markets. Is it any wonder that prevention receives so

little attention? Cancer is a big and successful business! " (pg. 207)

And, finally: " Reflecting on the purpose of the corporation to sell products

and services and maximize profits, it becomes apparent that prevention

cannot be in the interest of the bottom line. What a sad and bitter

realization, " she concludes.(pg. 228)

Despite this sad and bitter conclusion, this is a powerful upbeat book about

what citizens can and must do to end the epidemic of cancer that is sweeping

the western world. If the truth shall set us free, this book is an important

part of our collective liberation, freeing us from the lies and deceptions,

the false promises of cancer cures always " just around the corner. " Cancer

is caused by exposure to carcinogens. The way to solve the cancer problem is

to prevent exposures. This means we must end nuclear power, and demand clean

food, water and air. Janette Sherman's contribution has been to give us a

wealth of powerful evidence on which to act. Now it is up to us. --

Montague

[1] Janette D. Sherman, LIFE'S DELICATE BALANCE; THE CAUSES AND PREVENTION

OF BREAST CANCER (New York and London: and Francis, 2000). ISBN

1-56032-870-3. http://www.lifesdelicatebalance.com/

[Guest guest]

Isnt there a country that is almost cancer free Hunzas. Perhaps we need to

study their diet

Re: Breast Cancer stats in Marin County explained

Women have been drinking two glasses of wine in Italy, France and other

countries for ages! THAT is no basis for breast cancer!

Most breast cancer seems to have appeared in the post world war II years in

Western countries where an ENORMOUS amount of milk products were consumed!!

This has been publicized very often! The breast cancer rates in Northern

Europe, in very white places like Scandinavia zoomed in the post war years,

so it is no coincidence perhaps about Marin County! Breast cancer is an

accumulation of fat (even some of these currently popular wire underbras,

worn to excess, could provoke that!!). Breast feeding seems to counter

against developing breast cancer!

Clearly taking hormones, and birth control, and especially among women who

never have children, could provoke breast cancer. But two glasses of wine

per day? GIVE ME A BREAK!!

That too much alcohol is damaging, has been known for centuries.

Why do such studies ignore certain, pertinent facts, indeed neglect to EVEN

include them?

Why, for example, when speaking of lung cancer, does no one say that

American indians have been smoking for centuries and did not die of lung

cancer? or that the French, who still smoke a lot, have a lower lung cancer

rate than in the US, but are rapidly catching up, as lifestyles turn more

industrial, including air conditioning, processed and fast food, overweight,

begin to become more prevalent? It is indeed possible that in some cases

and incidences of certain diseases, it is an accumulation and or the

COMBINATION of environmental, and lifestyle factors that can help tendencies

to thrive.

This is why all this gets SO tiring!! Carole Anne

Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there.

Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by

visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv

[Guest guest]

I believe this has been done already. Their diet is rich in B17 due to the

apricot seeds they eat.

Read 's book, World Without Cancer.

Bob

Re: Breast Cancer stats in Marin County explained

>

> Women have been drinking two glasses of wine in Italy, France and other

> countries for ages! THAT is no basis for breast cancer!

>

> Most breast cancer seems to have appeared in the post world war II years

in

> Western countries where an ENORMOUS amount of milk products were

consumed!!

> This has been publicized very often! The breast cancer rates in Northern

> Europe, in very white places like Scandinavia zoomed in the post war

years,

> so it is no coincidence perhaps about Marin County! Breast cancer is an

> accumulation of fat (even some of these currently popular wire underbras,

> worn to excess, could provoke that!!). Breast feeding seems to counter

> against developing breast cancer!

>

> Clearly taking hormones, and birth control, and especially among women who

> never have children, could provoke breast cancer. But two glasses of wine

> per day? GIVE ME A BREAK!!

> That too much alcohol is damaging, has been known for centuries.

>

> Why do such studies ignore certain, pertinent facts, indeed neglect to

EVEN

> include them?

>

> Why, for example, when speaking of lung cancer, does no one say that

> American indians have been smoking for centuries and did not die of lung

> cancer? or that the French, who still smoke a lot, have a lower lung

cancer

> rate than in the US, but are rapidly catching up, as lifestyles turn more

> industrial, including air conditioning, processed and fast food,

overweight,

> begin to become more prevalent? It is indeed possible that in some cases

> and incidences of certain diseases, it is an accumulation and or the

> COMBINATION of environmental, and lifestyle factors that can help

tendencies

> to thrive.

>

> This is why all this gets SO tiring!! Carole Anne

>

>

> Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there.

> Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by

> visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv

>