lung cancer Archives - Amazing Health Advances

Bone Fractures, Lung Cancer, and Vitamin B12 Supplements?

The AHA! Team — Fri, 14 Feb 2025 06:21:08 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – What do randomized controlled trials of high-dose daily vitamin B12 supplementation show about its effects on cancer risk, death, and longevity? In 2019, “Association of High Intakes of Vitamins B6 and B12 from Food and Supplements with Risk of Hip Fracture Among Postmenopausal Women in the [Harvard] Nurses’ Health Study” was published. Note, though, that only the combined high intake of vitamins B6 (≥35 mg/day) and B12 (≥20 mcg/day) was associated with an increased hip fracture risk. We know that treatment with high doses of vitamin B6 may increase hip fracture risk on its own. After a decade or so, those who had been taking high-dose (40 mg) B6 supplements had about a 40 percent higher hip fracture risk, but not those taking B12, as you can see below and at 0:35 in my video Do Vitamin B12 Supplements Cause Bone Fractures and Lung Cancer?. That’s what the Harvard study found, too. High intake of vitamin B12 alone was not associated with increased risk. In fact, some observational studies suggest a slightly lower fracture risk at high B12 blood levels. What we care about most, though, are interventional studies, where people are randomized to B12 so we can see what happens, and when we look at those, we find there is no increased fracture risk among those given B12. In conclusion, based on randomized controlled trials, high doses of vitamin B12 have not been shown to be associated with the risk of fractures. Okay, but what about this? In 2017, a study found that men taking vitamin B12 supplements appeared to have increased lung cancer risk. Now, the researchers didn’t find any such association in women, and the increased risk was mostly among men who smoked. Could it be that B12 was feeding budding tumors? It’s hard enough imagining a vitamin being carcinogenic on its own, especially if it somehow only affects men and not also women. “Replication of these ﬁndings in additional prospective studies with careful measurement of B vitamin supplement use is warranted.” And, indeed, when you put together all the observational studies, there is no signiﬁcant correlation between lung cancer and levels of B12 in the blood, whether you’ve smoked or not. If anything, most studies seemed to trend towards higher B12 levels being protective, as you can see below and at 2:03 in my video. Then, in 2018, a new study found an association between overall lung cancer risk and higher circulating levels of B12, again appearing to be more of a concern with smokers, as seen here and at 2:16 in my video. Now, this was another observational study. Those with higher B12 levels were just observed to have higher cancer levels. Those of you who have been following my work know the drill: There are two potential issues that arise in observational studies that prevent us from ascribing cause-and-effect: confounding factors, also known as “lurker variables,” and reverse causation. What might be a lurker variable in this case? What might be a third factor associated with both higher B12 levels and cancer that may be the true cause? Well, who has higher levels of B12 circulating in their blood? Those who eat a lot of meat and dairy, which are, in fact, “the most important contributors to serum vitamin B-12,” that is, B12 in our blood. And those who eat more meat do tend to have more lung cancer: “Dose-response analysis showed that consumption of red meat for 120 g per day might increase the risk of lung cancer by 35%, and consumption of processed meat for 50 g per day might increase the risk of lung cancer by 20%.” So, we’re generally talking about 35 percent more risk for every quarter-pound burger eaten each day and about 20 percent increased risk for every breakfast sausage link. It’s no wonder those with higher B12 levels in their blood could have more lung cancer. The B12 could just be a marker for meat intake. And, if you remember, reverse causation is when X may not lead to Y, but, instead, Y may lead to X. So, instead of high B12 blood levels leading to cancer, maybe cancer leads to high blood levels of B12. And, indeed, nearly 75 percent of patients diagnosed with cancer exhibit elevated B12 levels. So, elevated B12 levels may simply be a marker for cancer. Besides taking extra B12, there are all sorts of reasons your levels can rise, such as liver problems, kidney problems, bone marrow problems, and cancer, as you can see below and at 3:50 in my video. So, high B12 levels may just be a marker of brewing, but not yet diagnosed, cancer. What about observational studies specifically linking B12 supplement use to lung cancer, though? Those could also be reverse causation: “The consequence of being at risk for cancer is that patients will engage in healthier behaviors, including taking multivitamins (reverse causality). The well-established causes, such as smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous cancers, are the real lung cancer risks.” So, we’re left with this “chicken or the egg causality dilemma,” which is why, ideally, we need randomized controlled trials to see if there’s any cause and effect. This became even more urgent with genetic evidence suggesting that those born with higher lifelong levels may be at increased risk. Thankfully, as you can see below and at 4:47 in my video, we do have randomized controlled trials—more than a dozen randomized controlled trials randomizing thousands of people up to 2,000 micrograms of B12 every single day for years, in fact. The findings? “Vitamin B supplementation does not have an effect on cancer incidence, death due to cancer, or total mortality.” And this includes specifically looking at lung cancer, as seen below and at 5:02 in my video. In fact, if anything, vitamin B supplements may actually lower the risk of the most dangerous form of skin cancer. If you missed my previous video, check out Do Vitamin B12 Supplements Cause Acne?. For my other B12 updates, see related posts below. All of these videos can be found in one digital download: Latest Vitamin B12 Recommendations. I’ve also explored vitamin B12’s role in stroke risk. See the related posts below. That series is available for digital download, too: Why Do Vegetarians Have Higher Stroke Risk?. Key Takeaways High intakes of vitamins B6 and B12 together are associated with an increased risk of hip fractures in postmenopausal women, but high B12 alone does not increase this risk. High doses of vitamin B12, based on randomized controlled trials, have not been shown to increase the risk of fractures, unlike high doses of vitamin B6. Some studies suggest that B12 supplementation may be linked to an increased risk of lung cancer in men, particularly smokers, though this association has not been consistently observed. Higher B12 levels in observational studies might be linked to higher meat consumption, which could be the true cause of increased cancer risk, rather than B12 itself. Elevated B12 levels may indicate underlying health issues like cancer, rather than being a direct cause of cancer, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between correlation and causation. To read the original article click here.

The post Bone Fractures, Lung Cancer, and Vitamin B12 Supplements? appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Novel Antibody May be Key to Better Lung Cancer Treatment

The AHA! Team — Mon, 30 Sep 2024 08:10:14 +0000

Abigail Klein Leichman via Israel21c – Researchers develop synthetic antibody that, when combined with common lung cancer drug, prevents relapse of adenocarcinoma tumors in mouse models. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and the most common form is a non-small-cell type called adenocarcinoma. The main course of treatment today, a kinase inhibitor drug called Osimertinib, is effective for many adenocarcinoma patients. But after a year or more, the cancer usually develops resistance to the drug and the tumor can regrow. Researchers from Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science just reported their success in developing a novel synthetic antibody that, when combined with Osimertinib, prevents or slows drug resistance and the relapse of adenocarcinoma tumors in mouse models. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths The results were published in Cell Reports Medicine. “When patients take only the drug, there can be relapse and it’s very bad for the patient because the new tumors are more aggressive,” explains lead author Arturo Simoni-Nieves, a postdoc researcher from Mexico who worked on the project in the lab of Prof. Yosef Yarden, his faculty adviser and incumbent of the Harold and Zelda Goldenberg Professorial Chair in Molecular Cell Biology. “The combination of the antibody and the drug targets two different proteins simultaneously in mouse models and helps us avoid the relapsing of the tumors,” Simoni-Nieves says. This phase of the research project took about three years to complete. “Our next task after testing is understanding the mechanism of how it works. Once we get that information, we can think about trying it with human patients,” says Simoni-Nieves. He expects this step to take another two or three years. Future clinical trials would reveal whether this novel antibody can be developed into a new treatment for lung cancer that not only inhibits the disease but also helps prevent its recurrence. “Osimertinib is the only treatment these patients have so far. Maybe with this antibody we can improve treatment,” says Simoni-Nieves. Osimertinib is the only treatment these patients have so far In addition to Simoni-Nieves and Yarden, the paper has 15 contributing authors, most from the Weizmann Institute as well as two collaborating researchers from the Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Osaka University in Japan and three researchers in Italy, from the Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences of the University of Bologna and from the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Rome. They concluded that their EGFR-AXL antibody “holds therapeutic promise.” The study was supported by Merck KGaA, the Israel Science Foundation, the European Research Council, the Israel Cancer Research Fund and the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation. To read the original article click here.

The post Novel Antibody May be Key to Better Lung Cancer Treatment appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Talcum Powder Risks: 5 Reasons to Never Put Baby Powder on Your Skin Again

AHA Publisher — Thu, 22 Jul 2021 07:00:31 +0000

Christine Ruggeri, CHHC via Dr. Axe – Talcum powder. It seems innocent enough, but did you know scientists have been warning us about potential risks since the 1960s? Talcum powder is a mineral-based product used in baby powder and many other cosmetics. Although published health studies show a link between use of talcum powder and ovarian cancer, millions of men and women still use it to absorb moisture and promote freshness. In fact, it’s still a popular diaper rash prevention tactic used in infants and young children. Johnson & Johnson shelled out more than $700 million dollars in talcum powder/ovarian cancer-related lawsuit cases in 2016 and 2017 alone, and have tens of thousands of pending lawsuits. In fact, Reuters just published an exclusive report suggesting that Johnson & Johnson is exploring a method to offload liabilities connected to baby powder litigations by pursing a bankruptcy plan. According to Reuters, Johnson & Johnson may use a newly created business to handle litigation related to talcum powder and would then seek bankruptcy protection, resulting in lower payouts for cases that didn’t settle beforehand. Still, people continue to use products containing talc on themselves and their children. Maybe they aren’t convinced of the potential health hazards of talcum powder, even though many studies and case reports clearly point out its dangers. Past reports have made it clear — you should never use baby powder or products containing talc on your skin. Plus, even inhaling these products can be problematic. The good news is that there are many natural alternatives for talcum powder that are completely safe and equally effective. What Is the Use of Baby Powder? Baby powder is commonly used to absorb moisture and cut down on friction. When applied to the skin, it can help prevent rashes and other skin irritations like chafing. Many women apply baby powder to their perineum, underwear or pads to keep the area fresh and dry. Talcum powder is also commonly added to makeup products like foundation and cosmetic powder in order to prevent caking and ensure a smooth appearance. And parents commonly apply it to their infants and young children to prevent bacterial overgrowth, yeast and diaper rash. Baby powder is a product name for talcum powder, which is made from talc, a clay mineral containing magnesium, silicon and oxygen. Talc is mined in proximity to asbestos, another naturally occurring mineral known to have carcinogenic effects. According to information posted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “to prevent contamination of talc with asbestos, it is essential to select talc mining sites carefully and take steps to purify the ore sufficiently.” Although the FDA considers it unacceptable for cosmetic talc to be contaminated with asbestos, there’s no federal mandate to test and approve cosmetic products and ingredients before they land on stores shelves. In an effort to address the safety concerns of talc in powders and cosmetic products, the FDA conducted a survey in 2009 and 2010. FDA asked nine talc suppliers to participate in the survey by sending samples of their talc. Of the nine suppliers, only four complied with the request. Meanwhile, tested purchased 34 cosmetic products in retail stores in the Washington D.C. area and tested them for asbestos contamination. The survey found no asbestos in any of the samples or products analyzed, but the FDA suggests these findings are limited because only four suppliers provided samples and the testing was limited to just 34 products. Therefore, this survey doesn’t prove that most or all talc-containing products sold in the United States are free of asbestos contamination. In fact, J&J recently recalled a batch of its baby powder due to concerns over baby powder asbestos contamination. Baby Powder Cancer Threats & Beyond 1. Ovarian Cancer According to the American Cancer Society, many studies in women investigated talcum powder’s link to cancer in the ovaries. When a woman applies baby powder or any product containing talc to her genital area, the powder particles can travel through the vagina, into the uterus and fallopian tubes and to the ovaries. The first study suggesting the connection of talc and ovarian cancer came out in 1971, when talc particles turned up in human ovarian and uterine tumors. Then, in 1982, a study linked genital talc use with ovarian cancer. Since then, dozens of studies suggest a strong link. A 2016 study conducted in Boston and published in Epidemiology analyzedthe association of ovarian cancer and genital talc use. Researchers examined talc use among 2,041 women with ovarian cancer and 2,100 women of similar ages and geographic locations that served as the controls. The data showed that genital use of talc increased ovarian cancer risk by 33 percent. The risk of cancer decreased as the longer a women went without using talcum powder in her genital region. Those who used the powder more frequently faced a greater risk of developing ovarian cancer. Another study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Preventioninvolved more than 1,300 African American women. Baby powder use was common for 62.8 percent of the women with ovarian cancer, implying a significant association between baby powder use and ovarian cancer risk. A New York Times article published in August, 2017 indicates that a judge recently ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million dollars in damages to a 63-year-old woman who developed ovarian cancer after using baby powder on her genital area when she was eleven years old. There have been more than 5,000 baby powder-related cases against Johnson & Johnson, with lawsuits claiming carcinogenic effects. Damages to Johnson & Johnson between 2016 and 2017 exceed $700 million dollars. 2. Lung Cancer Although inhaling talcum powder alone may not be directly related to the development of lung cancer, there are studies that suggest an increased risk of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases among talc miners and millers. This is most likely due to the varying forms of asbestos that can come into contact with talc. A 2015 review of evidence published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found an increase in lung cancer mortality rates among talc miners. However, talc exposure may have been confounded with other carcinogens and the data couldn’t be adjusted to measure the affects of talc only. Another study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, evaluated the risk of lung cancer and respiratory disease among workers exposed to asbestos-free talc and silica in the manufacture of ceramic plumbing fixtures. Researchers suggest that workers exposed to high levels of silica dust and no talc did not face a significant risk of developing lung cancer. However, workers exposed to talc in addition to high levels of silica had a significant 2.5-fold increased risk of lung cancer. The mortality rate rose the longer someone was exposure to talc in the workplace. 3. Lung Disease Inhaling the very small particles that make up talcum powder can lead to lung irritation and respiratory distress. Continuous application of or exposure to talcum powder can negatively affect infants, children, teens and adults. Even asbestos-free talcum powder can cause irritation and inflammation of the respiratory system when ingested or inhaled. A type of lung disease called pulmonary talcosis is a rare disorder caused by the inhalation of talc through occupational exposure or continued inhalation or ingestion of talc. A report published in BMJ Case Reports describes a 24-year-old woman who had a 4-month ritual of inhaling cosmetic talcum powder. She developed talcosis 10 years later. The disorder involves inflammation, chronic cough and difficulty breathing. 4. Respiratory Conditions in Infants and Children Many case reports of infants and preschool children experiencing adverse effects from talcum powder exist. Poison control center reports showincidents involving inhalation during a child’s diaper or clothing changing. When babies or children inhale the tiny particles in baby powder, it can produce a drying effect on their mucous membranes and affect breathing ability. If enough powder is inhaled in one moment or over time, it can lead to serious lung damage. A case report published in the BMJ describes a 12-week-old baby who accidentally inhaled and ingested baby powder accidentally spilt on his face during a diaper change. He immediately coughed and choked on the powder, then vomited and refused to eat. Four hours later he was admitted to the hospital with severe respiratory difficulties. Thirty minutes after hospital admission, his condition deteriorated and he went into respiratory arrest. After his airway was secured, he vomited a white talc-like substance. 5. Granulomatosis Talc granulomatosis occurs when intravenous drug abusers inject tablets containing talc that are intended for oral use. Talc is used in these tablets to hold the components of the medication together. Research suggests that injecting talc into blood vessels can cause arterial obstruction, loss of blood flow to bone tissue, and the formation of granulomas in the lungs. Granulomas are formed by an infection or inflammation caused by the presence of a foreign substance. Where Else Talcum Powder Hides? Talc isn’t only present in baby powder; in fact, it’s hiding in products that many people use on a daily basis. Here’s a list of products that typically include talc: Bath bombs Shower products Soap Lotions Feminine hygiene products Blush Bronzer Face powder Foundation Eye shadow Lipstick Face masks Toothpaste Deodorants Before buying any of these products, look for “talcum powder” or “cosmetic talc” on the label. If you choose to use products containing talc, choose companies that certify their product is talc-free, especially if you are using the powder or lotion in your pelvic area. Better Alternatives to Products Containing Talc For Baby There are many natural and safe ways to prevent diaper rash in infants and young children. Instead of relying on commercial products to use on your baby’s skin, make your own DIY diaper rash cream that contains coconut oil, beeswax, shea butter, witch hazel and calendula. This homemade diaper cream will help reduce inflammation and skin irritation without putting your baby at risk. Magnesium oil is another safe alternative. It has anti-inflammatory and wound-healing properties that can help to heal diaper rash quickly. For Women Natural alternatives to using powders or products containing talc exist and help effectively absorb moisture and keep you feeling fresh. For example, there are many baking soda uses for your skin and hair. Cornstarch also helps relieve skin irritation. Apply it to the skin to ease bug bites, chaffed skin, sunburns, jock itch, athlete’s foot and diaper rash. If you’re looking for a natural alternative for foundation, try my DIY Foundation Makeup. It’s made with skin-healing and soothing ingredients like coconut oil, shea butter, non-nanoparticle zinc oxide and vitamin E oil. To add color to this foundation, you use cinnamon and nutmeg, or cocoa powder. And if you’ve ever wondered how to make lipstick, try my all-natural homemade lipstick with lavender. It’s made with ingredients that will soften and repair your skin, while also getting rid of undesirable lines. Final Thoughts Baby powder is a product name for talcum powder, which is made from talc, a clay mineral that contains magnesium, silicon and oxygen. Talc is mined in proximity to asbestos, another naturally occurring mineral that is known to possess carcinogenic effects. Many studies in women, infants, children and male miners or millers suggest that inhaling talc or applying products containing talc to the skin can cause health conditions like ovarian cancer, lung cancer, lung disease and respiratory disease. Using natural alternatives for products containing talc, including cosmetic foundation, deodorant, baby powder, lipstick and lotion, will help you to avoid the dangers of applying talc to your skin or inhaling it. To read the original article click here. For more articles from Dr. Axe click here.

The post Talcum Powder Risks: 5 Reasons to Never Put Baby Powder on Your Skin Again appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

The Role of Meat and Dairy Viruses in Cancer

AHA Publisher — Fri, 02 Oct 2020 07:00:44 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – “Nearly 20% of cancer cases arising worldwide can be linked to infectious agents, including viruses.” Seven viruses are now conclusively tied to human cancers, and, as new viruses enterinto human populations, the incidence and causes of cancer will likely change accordingly. The foundation of modern tumor virology was laid more than a century ago with the discovery of a cancer-causing chicken virus, for which a Nobel Prize was awarded. Another Nobel Prize went to the “medical doctor-turned-virologist” who discovered that the HPV virus was causing cervical cancer. In his acceptance speech, he mused that there may be a bovine polyoma virus—a multiple tumor virus in cattle—that could be playing a role in human colon cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer, but no polyoma virus had ever been discovered in meat…until now. As I discuss in my video The Role of Burger Viruses in Cancer, polyomaviruses are a particular concern—not only because they are known to be carcinogenic, but also because they can survive cooking temperatures. Since a single burger these days can contain meat from “many dozens of animals,” researchers felt “this could present an ideal situation for virus-hunting…” Researchers from the National Cancer Institute purchased meat samples from three separate supermarkets and found three different polyomaviruses in ground beef, as you can see at 1:52 in my video. Now, just because three types of “polyomavirus species are commonly detectable in food-grade ground beef” doesn’t necessarily mean they are causing human disease. What made this Nobel laureate suspect them? Well, for one thing, some people got cancer right where they had been vaccinated for smallpox—a whole bunch of different cancers, in fact. The vaccine had been harvested from the skin of calves, so “it is possible” there could have been some cancer-causing cow virus. “Many people are exposed to potentially virus-contaminated meat and dairy products” through their diets, but those in the industry, “such as farm workers, butchers, veterinarians, and employees in dairies,” would be even more exposed. Do these groups have higher cancer incidence? Indeed, it now appears to be clear “that workers in the meat industry are at increased risk of developing and dying from cancer.” Another reason to suspect the involvement of some kind of bovine infectious factor in colorectal cancer is the fact that there appear to be relatively low rates of colorectal cancer in countries where not a lot of beef is eaten. And, when meat consumption suddenly increases, rates shoot up, as you can see at 3:15 in my video. “The only exception is Mongolia where they have low rates of colon cancer and eat a lot of red meat, but there they eat yak.” Maybe yaks don’t harbor the same viruses. Can’t you just avoid steak tartare? Even steak cooked “medium” may not reach internal temperatures above 70° Celsius, and it takes temperatures higher than that to inactivate some of these viruses, so we would expect viruses to survive both cooking and pasteurization. In fact, researchers followed up with a paper suggesting the consumption of dairy products may “represent one of the main risk factors for the development of breast cancer” in humans. The recent discovery of a larger number of presumably new viruses in the blood, meat, and milk of dairy cows should be investigated, since one might speculate that infectious “agents present in dairy products possess a higher affinity to mammary [breast] cells,” since they came from breast cells. The fact that people with lactose intolerance, who tend to avoid milk and dairy throughout their lives, have lower rates of breast and other cancers could be seen as supporting this concept. Though, there are certainly other reasons dairy may increase cancer risk, such as increasing levels of the cancer-promoting growth hormone IGF-1 or adversely affecting our gut microbiome. Or, for that matter, maybe the plant-based milks they’re drinking instead could be protective. That’s the problem with population studies: You can’t tease out cause and effect. It doesn’t matter how many viruses are found in retail beef, pork, and chicken, as you can see at 5:16 in my video, if we can’t connect the dots. Can’t we just look for the presence of these viruses within human tumors? Researchers have triedand did find some, but even if you don’t find any, that doesn’t necessarily mean viruses didn’t play a role. There’s a “viral hit-and-run” theory of cancer development that suggests that certain viruses can slip in and out of our DNA to initiate the cancer, but be long gone by the time the tumor matures. There’s still a lot of work to be done. But, if the link between bovine polyomaviruses and human disease pans out, the National Cancer Institute researchers envision the development of a high potency vaccine. So, just like the HPV vaccine may prevent cervical cancer from unsafe sex, perhaps one day, vaccines may prevent breast and colon cancer from unsafe sirloin. To read the original article click here. For more articles from Dr. Greger click here.

The post The Role of Meat and Dairy Viruses in Cancer appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Consider the Evidence When You Make Life-or-Death Decisions

AHA Publisher — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:00:18 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – In the 1940s and ’50s, the American Medical Association was not only saying that “smoking in moderation” wasn’t a problem, but that, on balance, it may even be beneficial… After all, most physicians themselves smoked, so how bad could it be? With such a position taken by one of the country’s leading medical groups, where could you turn if you just wanted the facts? According to one tobacco company ad, “science advances new data that may completely change your idea of cigarettes!” And what might those new data tell us? “She was too tired for fun…and then she smoked a Camel.” (You can see the unbelievable ads in my video Evidence-Based Eating, starting at 0:29). In another ad, baseball legend Babe Ruth told us, “Now! Medical science offers proof positive!” that the brand he was hawking is the safest to smoke of all the leading cigarettes—well, he told us, that is, when he still could talk, before he died of throat cancer. Now, some of the science-based evidence did leak out, causing a dip from an average of 11 or so cigarettes a day per person down to 10, as you can see at 0:50 in my video, but those who got scared of possible health risks from smoking could always choose “[t]he cigarette that takes the FEAR out of smoking!” Even better, why not choose the cigarette that “gives you the greatest health protection?” Had a SmokingFacts.org website existed during the time of these outrageous ads making such outrageous claims—a site that delivered the science directly to the people, bypassing commercially corruptible institutional filters—it would have featured a study of Seventh-day Adventists in California in 1958 that showed that nonsmokers may have at least 90 percent less lung cancer than smokers. With so much money and personal habit at stake, there will always be “dissenters.” Given the seriousness of these diseases and the sum total of evidence, though, we shouldn’t wait to put preventive measures in place. If you’re a smoker in the 1950s in the know and privy to the science-based realities of smoking, you realize the best available balance of evidence suggests your smoking habit is probably not good for you. So, what do you do? Do you change your smoking habits, or do you wait? If you wait until your physician tells you—between puffs—to quit, you could have cancer by then. If you wait until the powers that be officially recognize it, like the Surgeon General did in the subsequent decade, you could be dead by then. It took more than 7,000 studies and the deaths of countless smokers before the first Surgeon General report against smoking was finally released in the 1960s. Wouldn’t you think that after the first 6,000 studies or so, they could have given people a heads up? One wonders how many people are suffering needlessly right now from dietary diseases. Let’s fast-forward 55 years to a new Adventist study out of California warning Americans about the risks of something else they may be putting in their mouths: “Vegetarian diets are associated with lower all-cause mortality.” It’s not just one study either. According to a recent review, a total sum of evidence suggests that mortality from all causes put together, including many of our dreaded diseases were significantly lower in those eating more plant-based diets. As well, “[c]ompared with omnivores, the incidence of cancer and type 2 diabetes was also significantly lower in vegetarians.” So, instead of someone going along with America’s smoking habits in the 1950s, imagine you or someone you know is going along with America’s eating habits today. With access to the science, you realize the best available balance of evidence suggests your eating habits are probably not good for you. So, what do you do? Do you change your eating habits, or do you wait? If you wait until your doctor tells you—between bites—to change your diet, it could be too late. Just like most doctors smoked back then and didn’t tell their patients to change, despite the overwhelming evidence published for decades, most doctors today continue to eat foods that are contributing to our epidemics of dietary disease. In health, Michael Greger, M.D. This article has been modified. To read the original article click here. For more articles from Dr. Greger click here.

The post Consider the Evidence When You Make Life-or-Death Decisions appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Israeli Ice Device Destroys Malignant Liver and Kidney Tumors

AHA Publisher — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:00:38 +0000

Abigail Klein Leichman via Israel21c – US doctors already use IceCure’s ProSense to destroy benign breast lumps. Soon they’ll be using it for malignant liver and kidney tumors. In July 2012, ISRAEL21c wrote about a novel device from Caesarea-based IceCure Medical that was revolutionizing how American doctors remove benign breast lumps. The device uses minimally invasive cryoablation to destroy the tumor by freezing it rather than surgically removing it. Since then, IceCure’s ProSense system has expanded its applications dramatically. The device currently is used in Asia, Israel and Europe to zap early-stage cancerous liver and kidney tumors. IceCure recently received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to do the same in the United States. Just how soon ProSense will be available in US treatment centers for the two new applications is hard to say. IceCure Medical VP of Business Development and Global Marketing Tlalit Bussi Tel Tzure tells ISRAEL21c that the insurance reimbursement codes are in place for both indications. Now the public company is beginning to “build the right infrastructure to start our commercial phase for these indications” in America from its New Jersey branch office. Mission: Treating More Patients Meantime, IceCure’s ProSense device is being used in Europe for breast, kidney, lung and bone cancer. And more than 300 lung cancer patients and 300 breast cancer patients have been treated with ProSense in Japan. “In Israel we are performing a clinical trial for kidney cancer in Bnai Zion Medical Center in Haifa. We have treated about 100 patients with very promising results. We hope in the coming year to finalize this study and publish our results,” says Tel Tzure. “We have also started registration in China and already have our first order from a leading Chinese hospital to do an independent study for breast cancer,” she adds. IceCure is working toward gaining FDA approval for using ProSense to treat cancerous breast tumors. “At the end of 2014, we started a landmark study in the United States using our technology to treat early diagnosed breast cancer with cryoablation instead of surgery,” says Tel Tzure. “The trial is now in 19 centers, and at the end of 2019 we finished enrollment of 200 patients. We will follow up for five years to see if there has been no reoccurrence of the tumor at the area that was treated. Only then can we apply to the FDA for approval for the breast cancer indication. It will be a major breakthrough when that happens.” In October last year, the American Association of Breast Surgeons adapted its guidelines based on IceCure’s clinical trial results, supporting “accelerated investigations of cryoablation technology for treatment of malignant breast tumors.” IceCure also has received FDA approval for ear, nose and throat applications. This is not yet an active focus but could be in the future. “The world wants to use our innovation to treat more patients. So this is our mission,” says Tel Tzure. How ProSense works IceCure was cofounded in 2006 by cryogenics expert Dr. Alex Levin and businessman Didier Toubia (now cofounder and CEO of cultivated meat startup Aleph Farms) in the Naiot Venture Accelerator in Yokne’am. The cryoablation device they developed is based on a technology Levin patented in 2002. The physician inserts a ProSense probe into the tumor – there are different ones corresponding to the size and shape of the mass – guided by ultrasound or CT imaging. Once the needle is inside, the probe tip’s temperature is lowered with liquid nitrogen to minus 170 Celsius in less than a minute. Within an hour, the extreme cold destroys the target tissue, which dissolves out of the body naturally in a few weeks. The procedure is done under local anesthesia no matter where the tumor is located. The surrounding healthy tissue is not damaged and there is no scarring. Afterward, the patient can go right home and resume full activity. There are several limitations on this groundbreaking treatment: It cannot treat multiple tumors and it is only for early-stage (stage 1 or 2) tumors confined to no more than 1.5 centimeters in the breast or up to 3 centimeters in the liver, kidney or bone. “With early screening, the number of tumors being found at this stage is growing all the time,” notes Tel Tzure. “It is important to mention that our technology does not replace chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Depending on the patient, the care team may want to follow up with those therapies.” To read the original article click here. For more articles from Israel21c click here.

The post Israeli Ice Device Destroys Malignant Liver and Kidney Tumors appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Largest Decrease Ever in US Cancer Deaths: Here’s Why

AHA Publisher — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:00:53 +0000

Lorie Johnson via CBN News – Cancer rates are down. Way down. In fact, in the last 30 years, the number of people dying from cancer has fallen by nearly one-third. What does that mean in terms of the number of lives saved? Think of it this way. If the cancer death rate had remained the same, nearly three million more people would have died. Cancer rates have been falling an average of 1.5 percent each year in the past few decades. The biggest one-year decline during that time, actually the biggest decline ever, occurred between 2016 and 2017, when cancer death rates dropped 2.2 percent in just one year, according to a report published by the American Cancer Society. According to Rebecca Siegel, the lead author of the report, the decline can largely be attributed to a decrease in the death rates from lung cancer, the type that claims the most lives. She points out two main reasons fewer people are dying from lung cancer. First, fewer people are getting it. “This steady progress is largely due to reductions in smoking,” she said. Secondly, she points to breakthrough improvements in lung cancer treatment, particularly immunotherapy, which boosts the patient’s own ability to fight and destroy cancer by strengthening the body’s T cells to kill the tumors. In addition to a decline in lung cancer deaths, the report highlights a decrease in deaths from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, largely due to revolutionary new immunotherapy treatments. While the overall cancer deaths continue to decline, the report strikes a somber note when it comes to deaths from breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, and cervical cancer. Progress has slowed for these diseases. That’s tragic. However, what makes it even worse is that these diseases can easily be detected in their very early stages, and as a result, can be successfully treated in a way that the patient can live a long and healthy life. Cancer experts say too many people ignore cancer screenings, despite the fact that most insurance plans cover the tests. Certain cancer screenings such as mammograms, colonoscopies, and pap smears can detect cancer in its earliest stages, usually before the patient even feels anything unusual. For example, gastroenterologists point out regular colonoscopies can prevent nearly all cancers of the rectum and colon if people start getting the screenings beginning at the recommended age of 50. However, these same doctors report only 40-percent of people over age 50 choose to get a colonoscopy. Too often, patients only seek medical help when they begin experiencing symptoms of cancer after the disease has significantly progressed and is harder to treat. In addition to not getting cancer screenings, Americans appear to be thwarting cancer death declines by packing on the excess pounds. The rate of obesity-related cancers is on the rise. These include pancreatic, liver, kidney and uterine cancers. To read the original article click here. For more articles from CBN News click here.

The post Largest Decrease Ever in US Cancer Deaths: Here’s Why appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Cigarette Smoke Damages Our Mental Health, Too

AHA Publisher — Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:00:00 +0000

ISRAEL21c Staff by Israel21c – New Israeli-Serbian research study suggests that smoking and depression are closely linked. Everyone knows that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer, heart disease, low birth weight, and high blood pressure, among other health hazards. But you may be surprised to learn that there are also mental health risks related to smoking, according to a new study. Professor Hagai Levine at Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s-Hadassah Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine published these groundbreaking findings in the journal PLOS ONE with Assistant Prof. Tatjana Gazibara at the University of Belgrade and PhD student Marija Milic at the University of Pristina. Together, they surveyed more than 2,000 students enrolled at Serbian universities with differing socio-political and economic environments. The survey showed that students who smoked were two to three times more likely to suffer from clinical depression compared to non-smoking peers. At the University of Pristina, 14% of smokers suffered from depression as opposed to 4% of their non-smoking peers, and at Belgrade University the numbers were 19% to 11%, respectively. No matter their economic or socio-political backgrounds, students who smoked also had higher rates of depressive symptoms and lower mental health scores (such as vitality and social functioning) than did non-smoking students. “Our study adds to the growing body of evidence that smoking and depression are closely linked,” shared Levine. “While it may be too early to say that smoking causes depression, tobacco does appear to have an adverse effect on our mental health.” To read the original article click here.

The post Cigarette Smoke Damages Our Mental Health, Too appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.