New Poison Found In Chewing Tobacco

If you had hopes that chewing tobacco is a safe way to use tobacco, your optimism just went up in smoke.

Scientists have now identified a powerful carcinogen in smokeless tobacco called by the innocent-sounding designation (S)-NNN.

It’s long been known that smokeless tobacco users have an increased risk of getting oral, esophageal and pancreatic cancer. But now, scientists are beginning to understand the chemical nature of this threat.

“The most popular brands of smokeless tobacco that are sold in the U.S. have unacceptably high levels of this particular carcinogen,” warns lead author Stephen Hecht, Ph.D. “And smokeless tobacco is a known cause of oral cancer. Obviously, we need to decrease the levels of this material in all smokeless tobacco products — or eliminate it altogether.”

Light Bulbs Of Death: Toxic Danger In Your Living Room

If you’re not careful, a simple light bulb can seriously endanger your health. But with a few easy precautions, you can keep energy-efficient bulbs from becoming toxic nightmares.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) are a type of energy-efficient light bulb designed to replace traditional incandescent bulbs. Government regulations are already in place to phase out traditional, less-efficient bulbs; however, consumer watch groups and countless concerned individuals assert that this mandated switch may not be such a bright idea — at least where CFLs are concerned.

While CFL bulbs are supposed to be more environmentally friendly by using up to 75 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs, there are real issues regarding CFL bulbs and their impact on health and the environment. The main concern? CFLs contain mercury, a heavy metal that poses serious health risks when the bulbs are broken during manufacturing, shipping, regular use or disposal.

In addition, CFLs emit a small amount of UV radiation, which may be an issue for some people, such as those with certain types of Lupus. The United Kingdom Health Protection Agency reports that at 12 inches or closer, low levels of UV radiation can be detected from a single envelope CFL bulb. The agency advises that susceptible individuals limit close-range exposure to these bulbs.

Mercury Vapors
When broken, CFL bulbs pose significant health risks, exposing you to mercury. Strong precautions must be taken when dealing with a broken CFL bulb. Mercury is a dangerous toxin capable of damaging DNA, disrupting critical biological functions, impairing the nervous system and producing other serious and degenerative effects.

A 2011 report from Jackson State University presented a detailed analysis of mercury vapor release from CFLs. Eight different brands and four different wattages of CFL bulbs were tested.

Results showed that the mercury content varied significantly between brands. However, mercury vapor emission analysis revealed that all of the CFLs continuously released mercury vapors once they were broken, with mercury being released even up to 10 weeks after breakage. Total amount of mercury vapor released from a broken CFL can exceed 1 mg, which can cause mercury levels in a regular room to exceed the safe human-exposure limit. Additionally, the mercury leaching out from CFLs into the environment can be transformed into methylmercury, a highly toxic chemical that becomes concentrated at high levels as it travels up the food chain. Some States require that CFL bulbs be recycled to prevent additional mercury release into the environment.

Safe Handling Of CFL Bulbs

The breakage of unused CFLs during transportation, handling, sales and installation
causes even more release of mercury vapor than broken used bulbs. Since mercury vapor can be easily inhaled by people, rapid removal of broken CFLs and sufficient ventilation are critical safeguards to protect people from potential harm. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends precautions that include the wearing of rubber gloves, ventilating the area and restricting access for five to 10 minutes before cleanup begins. For detailed instructions on proper cleanup of broken CFL bulbs, click here.

The use of CFL bulbs is not mandatory. There are other energy-efficient choices, such as LED lights, which are safer, more efficient and longer lasting. However, LED bulbs are much more costly. The bottom line: Purchasing the right light bulbs requires a bit more consumer awareness, but for good reason. It’s up to us to choose energy solutions that benefit the environment and are safe for our health.

Total Body Detoxification

Mercury and other heavy metals wreak health havoc when they accumulate in our bodies. If you have concerns about your heavy metal body burden or if you have tested positively for high levels of mercury, lead or other environmental pollutants, there is a proven solution for safely removing these toxins from your body.

A comprehensive detoxification formula containing modified citrus pectin and sodium alginate is clinically proven to bind and remove up to 74 percent of heavy metals including mercury, lead and others over a period of three to six months. Made from a tailored blend of modified citrus pectin and seaweed-derived alginate, a gentle yet highly effective formula has been shown in published clinical trials to reduce heavy metal body burden without affecting levels of essential minerals (a common pitfall of other natural chelation methods). When used in conjunction with a phase two detox formula and a healthy diet and lifestyle, total heavy metal body burden can be significantly reduced. By supporting your body’s natural cleansing systems with a gentle, systemic detoxification program, you can help maintain your overall health and vitality, safely and effectively.

Electric Sweet Potatoes Are More Nutritious

Sweet potatoes already enjoy a reputation as an extremely high source of fiber and antioxidants. Now, though, scientists have found that a simple, inexpensive treatment with an electric current boosts its polyphenols, phytonutrients that help the body fight disease.

Initially, researchers in Japan discovered that passing an electric current through white potatoes increases their polyphenol by 60 percent. Naturally found in fruits and vegetables, polyphenols help ward off disease and reduce the effects of aging. After their success with white potatoes, researchers zapped sweet potatoes.

The researchers electrified the vegetables by placing them in a salt solution that conducts electricity and passing varying amounts of electric current through the solution for five minutes. They found 0.2 amps of current to be optimal in increasing antioxidant activity in the sweet potatoes. The treated sweet potatoes had 1.4 times the antioxidant benefits of those left untreated.

The scientists note that the method represents an inexpensive and easy way to increase the health benefits of an already healthy food without altering flavor.

Sweet potatoes already contain seven times more polyphenols than other potatoes. The Center for Science in the Public Interest at one point named the sweet starch as the No. 1 nutritional vegetable when eaten baked.

When you cook sweet potatoes, you can retain the heightened antioxidant most effectively by steaming them.

They Say He Died In His Sleep: But Why?

They assume that he had a heart attack in his sleep, but did he? There is a high probability that many thousands of people die in their sleep because they had Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). OSA causes them to stop breathing many times during the night, and maybe one of those times they die.

Families and doctors assume heart attack, but it could easily be OSA. Losing your breath during sleep is very serious. Besides the danger of loss of breath during sleep, the risk of dying is a threat and the person is seriously deprived of restful sleep.

Lack of rest nightly is a health problem. It’s a medical problem that’s far more serious than most people believe.

One can be tired all the time and never suspect why. Lack of adequate respiratory ventilation is usually not a need for surgical intervention but can easily be diagnosed with a one-night stay in a hospital sleep lab.

If one wakes up tired all the time or wakes up at night with a start, diagnosis for sleep apnea is in order. It could actually save your life.

Here is another thing: Most men have BPH (benign prostate hypotrophy), causing urinary urgency several times at night. Urinary urgency is far more of a problem, causing up-and-down, broken sleep from going to the bathroom if one has sleep apnea.

Deep Sleep Holds Off Urinary Urgency

Making many trips to the bathroom at night is a tip-off of light sleep and the possible need for medical diagnosis for poor respiratory ventilation.

Poor respiratory ventilation and lack of sleep are widespread, especially in older men. This is far too easy to correct. You can’t afford to neglect it.

The Symptoms:

• Snoring, interrupted by pauses in breathing
• Gasping for breath or choking during sleep
• Restless sleep
• High blood pressure
• Depression
• Obesity, especially metabolic syndrome with large waist circumference
• Sexual dysfunction
• Excessive daytime sleepiness
• Large neck size
• Morning headaches
• Poor concentration
• Irritability
• Memory loss

Complications can include nasal obstruction, causing decreased oxygen and increased carbon dioxide. Heart disease or stroke can add to risk factors causing or complicating sleep apnea.

Treatment:

• Laser surgery (nasal coblation)
• Oral appliances
• Medication
• C-Pap machine

I like C-Pap machines. They force normal breathing and deep sleep. I needed one many years before I went through the sleep lab. Four to five hours of unbroken sleep is invaluable. How much better I feel!

Medicare pays for the sleep lab diagnosis for seniors. It also pays for the C-Pap machine for seniors who are diagnosed by the sleep lab as needing it.

Lemon Juice With Meals

Last week, I wrote about how important hydrochloric acid is to digestion (here) and how the pharmaceutical industry has engaged in a disinformation campaign in pushing the myth of over-acid stomachs.

I gave you natural remedies for maintaining proper digestion, but I neglected to mention how lemon juice with meals will eliminate the symptoms of stomach “acidity” and “indigestion.”

Squeeze a slice of lemon into your water and drop the slice into the glass. This will give your water a little kick, and it’ll improve your digestion. One slice will last through several refills.

Acid reflux or GERD (gastro-esophageal reflux disease) is rarely due to “too much stomach acid.” Contrary to mass advertising, antacids are wrong and actually lead to stomach cancer.

Proton pump inhibitors like the “purple pill” block the digestive process, i.e., stomach hydrochloric acid and pepsin.

Couch Potato Lifestyle More Serious Problem For Kids Than Drug Abuse, Say American Adults

If you ask American adults about the most serious problem with kid health today, they most frequently complain about kids who never get off the couch. The next most frequent problem cited is that kids are gaining too much weight.

According to the University of Michigan’s National Poll of Children’s Health, adults now recognize lack of exercise as the most important concern for children, followed closely by childhood obesity. Smoking and tobacco use trailed in third place. Drug abuse came in only fourth.

The top child-health concerns are:

1.  Lack of exercise

2. Childhood obesity

3. Smoking and tobacco use

4. Drug abuse

5. Bullying

6. Stress

7. Alcohol abuse

8. Teen pregnancy

9. Internet safety

10. Child abuse and neglect

“Childhood obesity remains a top concern, and adults know it is certainly linked to lack of exercise,” says Matthew M. Davis M.D., M.A.P.P., director of the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health.

What They NEVER Told You About Eggs

By Cassandra Forsythe-Pribanic, PhD, RD

The Egg: this three letter word invokes almost as much fear into the hearts of Americans as our other favorite “deadly” three-letter word: F-A-T.

However, it’s finally time to crack the misconception that eggs are bad for our health, because they’re absolutely not.
It’s unfortunate, but many people still think that you cannot eat more than one egg per day, or even more than 3 eggs per week because if you do, you’ll develop high blood cholesterol levels and fatty arteries. But, this could not be farther from the truth.

So, why do we think this way?

In the 1960’s consumers were first “warned” about eggs as being a major player in the development of heart disease… without any conclusive evidence to back up this claim. News articles overwhelmingly focused on the egg- cholesterol - heart disease link when there was no real proof for this message.

Eggs were so demonized that egg substitute products became all the rage for cooking and baking, but they were no better, and sometimes far worse, than the whole egg itself.

Today, consumers need to understand that eggs are not evil, but in fact are healthy and important components of our diets.

High Protein Quality

First and foremost, eggs an inexpensive source of high quality protein that almost everyone can enjoy in various ways – from scrambled eggs to deviled eggs to green eggs and ham, eggs are a versatile way to quickly and easily get more protein in your diet. And, they’re not just for breakfast, but for lunch and dinner too!

In terms of protein quality, most foods rich in protein are measured in terms of the availability of that protein to effectively promote growth (cell growth), and this term is known as biological value.

Based on the amino acids contained in an egg and its ability to stimulate growth, egg protein is only second to mother’s milk for human nutrition.

On a scale, with 100 representing top efficiency, these are the biological values of proteins in several foods:

Whole Egg	94
Milk	85
Fish	76
Beef	74
Soybeans	73
Beans, dry	58

Biological Value of Protein Foods

Nutrition Powerhouses

Secondly, eggs are powerhouses of nutrition:

•    Eggs are among the few sources of naturally occurring vitamin D and K, which are known for cancer protection and longevity.

•    Eggs contain the highest source of dietary choline (125mg/egg), which is a nutrient necessary for proper nervous system development and structural integrity of cell membranes; particularly, choline is necessary for brain development in infants to impart lifelong enhancement of memory and attention.

•    They supply 6.3grams of high quality protein, 5 grams of fat primarily consisting of an even balance of saturates and monounsaturates, with less polyunsaturates, and barely no carbohydrates at all; they’re the perfect low carbohydrate food.

•    Some designer eggs contain up to 200 mg of DHA, the essential omega-3 fatty acid needed by all humans for normal development and functioning, and prevention of depression and memory loss.

•    The whole egg contains 166 mcg of lutein and zeaxanthin, two super antioxidants that contribute to eye health and prevent common causes of age-related blindness; research shows that the bioavailability of these nutrients from eggs is higher than other foods with higher contents.

Eggs Do NOT Cause Heart Disease

In November 2010, a paper was published by Canadian medical researchers entitled, “Dietary cholesterol and egg yolks: not for patients at risk of vascular disease”.

The authors stated that: “Patients at risk of cardiovascular disease should limit their intake of cholesterol. Stopping the consumption of egg yolks after a stroke or myocardial infarction would be like quitting smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer: a necessary action, but late.”

However, prior to this paper, over the past 10 years, numerous studies, both clinical and observational, were published with the findings that there is no connection between egg consumption and heart disease risk, especially in healthy individuals.

For example, Dr Maria-Luz Fernandez and colleagues have been investigating egg nutritional health for more than a decade and have published findings such as:

•    “Revisiting Dietary Cholesterol Recommendations: Does the Evidence Support a Limit of 300 mg/d?”. Overall, no study has yet shown an association between egg intake and risk for heart disease and there is no compelling epidemiological or clinical trial results that show compelling evidence for limiting cholesterol intake to 300 mg/day or restricting egg consumption.

•    “Dietary Cholesterol from Eggs Increases Plasma HDL Cholesterol in Overweight Men Consuming a Carbohydrate-Restricted Diet”. Raising HDL cholesterol is often called impossible, but is necessary to protect against plaque build-up in your arteries (HDL carries it away). This study shows that it can be easily increased in overweight men (a population very susceptible to heart disease) by reducing carb intake and using eggs in the diet regularly.

•    ‘Pre-menopausal women, classified as hypo- or hyper-responders, do not alter their LDL/HDL ratio following a high dietary cholesterol challenge”. When 50 pre-menopausal women (another very susceptible heart disease population) were given either an egg a day plus cholesterol from other foods, or a cholesterol-free egg substitute for 30 days, did not experience the development of an ‘atherogenic lipoprotein profile” regardless if they were hyper or hypo-responders to dietary cholesterol.

Overall, dietary cholesterol from eggs does NOT cause heart disease, rather a lifestyle and a diet high in foods that elicit increased inflammation, hyperglycemia and oxidative stress induces increased atherosclerotic build-up and increased risk for heart attack or stroke (among other diseases).

As such, it is wise to follow a diet low in sugar, void of processed foods, artificial chemicals (flavors and colors), preservatives and pesticides and avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, and replace it with a whole foods, natural, plant-rich diet balanced in protein, carbohydrates and fat to minimize heart disease risk.

Avoiding eggs is not the answer – in fact, including eggs in your wholesome diet will actually benefit you more . Two eggs provide 13 grams of protein, ~10 grams of fat, and plenty of nutrients you barely find in any other foods. This will keep you satisfied, healthy and energized for hours after any meal and will help you choose other healthy foods at the right times.

However, If you choose not to live a healthy lifestyle with whole foods, adequate sleep, plenty of exercise and minimal toxins, and/or you already have heart disease, you may be advised to limit your intake of egg yolks because it may acerbate your current situation.

Mammograms Have 'Limited or No Effect' on Breast Cancer Deaths: Study

By Dr. Mercola

With only a few weeks to go before the annual October rush promoting mammograms begins, a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is raising some doubts on mammography's purported merits.

The findings showed mammograms have little or no influence on reducing the number of women who die from breast cancer … and considering there are serious health risks involved, too, what, then, is the point?

Mammograms Again Shown to Have Little to No Value

Breast cancer mortality rates in Sweden have been declining since 1972. Even though this was before mammography was introduced, the reductions have continued and many have attributed it to mammography screening.

The researchers that authored the current study also expected to see a reduction in breast cancer deaths associated with mammograms, but the results showed otherwise:¹

"County-specific mortality statistics in Sweden are consistent with studies that have reported limited or no impact of screening on mortality from breast cancer among women aged 40-69."

In light of these findings, the study's lead researcher Dr. Philippe Autier, at the International Prevention Research Institute in Lyon, France, noted:²

"Information to women on mammography screening should better reflect uncertainty on the effectiveness of that test, and underline the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment."

And this is not the first time the effectiveness of mammograms has been called into question. In 2010, another study concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening.³

Mammograms May Cause More Harm Than Good

Many women are under the impression that a mammogram is simply an innocuous test that might or might not help you detect breast cancer sooner. But research shows this screening may end up harming more women than it helps.

Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Center issued a leaflet explaining the potential benefits and potential harms of mammography, stating that, based on the available research, it no longer seems reasonable for women to attend breast cancer screening. After systematically reviewing the randomized trials of mammography, they concluded that:⁴

"If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, one will benefit from screening, as she will avoid dying from breast cancer because the screening detected the cancer earlier.

Since these trials were undertaken, treatment of breast cancer has improved considerably. Women today also seek medical advice much earlier than previously, if they have noted anything unusual in their breasts...

Because of these improvements, screening is less effective today and newer studies suggest that mammography screening is no longer effective in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer.

... Since it is not possible to tell the difference between the dangerous and the harmless cell changes and cancers, all of them are treated.

Therefore, screening results in treatment of many women for a cancer disease they do not have, and that they will not get. Based on the randomized trials, it appears that:

If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, 10 healthy women will be turned into cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. These women will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and they will often receive radiotherapy, and sometimes chemotherapy.

Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying, e.g. from heart disease and cancer."

So, to recap, in order for mammographic breast screening to save ONE woman's life:

• 2,000 women must be screened for 10 years
• 200 women will get false positives
• 10 will receive surgery and/or chemotherapy even though they do not actually have cancer

Yet another study, this one published in The Lancet Oncology late last year,⁵ described the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are typically aggressively treated and/or removed before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone.

This study however, demonstrated for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a highercumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings! The study concluded that:

"Because the cumulative incidence among controls did not reach that of the screened group, we believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

FDA Secretly Monitored Mammogram Whistleblowers' Emails

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers—its own scientists and doctors—over the course of two years. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Six of the monitored scientists and doctors recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA, charging that the agency violated their constitutional rights to privacy by monitoring lawful activity in personal email accounts, and using that information to harass and ultimately relieve some of them of their positions.

According to the Washington Post⁶:

"All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes. Copies of the e-mails show that, starting in January 2009, the FDA intercepted communications with congressional staffers and draft versions of whistleblower complaints complete with editing notes in the margins. The agency also took electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of the FDA employees and reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government computers."

The FDA has declined to comment on the allegations, stating it does not comment on cases involved with litigation. However, according to internal FDA documents obtained by the plaintiffs under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency had asked the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) inspector general to conduct an investigation back in May 2010, stating suspicions that the plaintiffs had improperly disclosed confidential business information about the devices.

The HHS inspector general's office found no evidence of criminal conduct, stating the doctors and scientists had legal right to share their concerns with Congress and journalists. Hence no investigation was launched. But the FDA was not satisfied.

On June 28 that same year, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health wrote that,"We have obtained new information confirming the existence of information disclosures that undermine the integrity and mission of the FDA and, we believe, may be prohibited by law," and again requested action be taken against the employees in question. After consulting with general prosecutors, the inspector general declined the second request for an investigation as well. Now the question is whether the agency monitored their employees within legal limits, and whether the purpose of the extensive monitoring was reasonable. Senator Charles Grassley doesn't seem to think so, stating that:

"The FDA has a huge responsibility to protect public health and safety. It's hard to see how managers apparently thought it was a good use of time to shadow agency scientists and monitor their e-mail accounts for legally protected communications with Congress."

Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety

A recent article by Martha Rosenberg gives even more details about what’s really going on at the FDA⁷. She writes:

“For reporting the safety risks, the scientists became targets of the now-disclosed spy program and some lost their jobs. "It has been brought to our attention that FDA management may have just recently ordered the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) to investigate us, rather than the managers who have engaged in wrongdoing!" wrote the FDA scientists in a follow-up letter a few weeks later to President Obama. "It is an outrage that our own Agency would step up the retaliation to such a level because we have reported their wrongdoing to the United States Congress."

Dr. Kavanagh worked as an FDA drug reviewer from 1998 to 2008, and reportedly encountered the same kind of hostile and coercive working environment as the device reviewers. Rosenberg interviewed Dr. Kavanagh for her article, in which he makes the following shocking statements:

“In the Center for Drugs [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or CDER], as in the Center for Devices, the honest employee fears the dishonest employee. There is also irrefutable evidence that managers at CDER have placed the nation at risk by corrupting the evaluation of drugs and by interfering with our ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs.

While I was at the FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs. We were prevented, except in rare instances, from presenting findings at advisory committees. In 2007, formal policies were instituted so that speaking in any way that could reflect poorly on the agency could result in termination. If we asked questions that could delay or prevent a drug's approval - which of course was our job as drug reviewers - management would reprimand us, reassign us, hold secret meetings about us, and worse. Obviously in such an environment, people will self-censor.”

Truly, this is an interview you’ll want to read in its entirety. It’s absolutely shocking. Dr. Kavanagh points out several of the ways drugs slip through the system. For example, drug safety studies usually include too few individuals and are too short to adequately evaluate health risks. Just one single adverse event during such a study can therefore be extremely important and must be taken seriously. Alas, according to this insider, in-depth evaluations and follow-up studies rarely take place. He also claims reviewers were specifically instructed to only read the summary and accept drugmakers’ claims without examining any of the submitted data!

“Other times I was ordered not to review certain sections of the submission, but invariably that's where the safety issues would be. This could only occur if FDA management was told about issues in the submission before it had even been reviewed,” he says.

Dr. Kavanagh’s testimony sends chills up my spine, as it so clearly describes the inner workings of an agency that is putting your health at grave risk instead of protecting you and your family from dangerous drugs and medical devices...

Why Getting a Mammogram Can be a Risky Decision

The long-held conventional medical advice has been for women to get an annual mammogram once they hit 40. A couple of years ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force decided to alter their mammogram recommendation, advising women under the age of 50 to avoid mammograms, and limit them to every other year after the age of 50. The revision caused outrage among many cancer organizations. What was overlooked, however, was the reasoning behind the Task Force's decision to change their recommendation.

The prior advice was given in 2002, before a host of new research came out showing the problems of overdiagnosis, including false positives.

If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman's breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves removing a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. However, early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise. There are actually NO universally agreed upon diagnostic standards for D.C.I.S., and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise...

Many conventional physicians view DCIS as "pre-cancerous" and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated itshould be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer; however the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, with the weight of evidence suggesting it is significantly less than 50 percent -- perhaps as low as 2-4 percent.

This suggests that watchful waiting may be the more sensible approach, but most women are not informed of this option and instead go through invasive breast cancer treatments like surgery, radiation and toxic chemotherapy that often turns out to be unnecessary. As discussed above, it's really hard to justify harming 10 women with surgery and toxic chemotherapy treatment in order to possibly save the life of one woman ...  

New York and Virginia followed the lead of Connecticut and Texas and recently passed laws requiring women with dense breasts to be informed they may need to seek alternative screening methods.  The Federal Breast Density Bill is (HR 3102) is also currently being considered.

Mammography and its subsequent tests, such as MRIs and stereotactic (x-ray guided) biopsies, likely contribute to cancer because of the cumulative radiation exposure that occurs over a lifetime and the particularly radiation-sensitive nature of breast cells, e.g. BRCA1/2 genes confer greater risk for breast cancer, in part, because they interfere with the repair of radiation-induced DNA damage. Even the National Cancer Institute states that "repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer."⁸

And finally, although receiving a false positive is the major danger of mammograms, false negatives also occur. Mammograms are especially inaccurate for women with dense breasts; New York and Virginia recently passed laws requiring women with dense breasts to be informed they may need to seek alternative screening methods. It's estimated that up to 75 percent of women in their 40s, and up to 50 percent of all women, have dense breasts, which increases the likelihood that a mammogram will be ineffective and inaccurate.⁹

Thermography: Breast Health Monitoring That's as Safe as Taking Your Photograph

Download Interview Transcript

I recently interviewed Gaea Powell about the use of thermography as a safe way to monitor your risk of breast cancer over the long term. Thermographic breast screening is as safe as having your photograph taken and measures the infrared heat emitted by your body, translating this information into thermal images. Thermography does not require mechanical compression or ionizing radiation, and can detect signs of physiological changes due to inflammation and/or increased tumor related blood flow approximately 8-10 years before mammography or a physical exam can detect a mass.

So, if your thermogram shows areas of high inflammation, it doesn't mean you have cancer, but it lets you know you need to address that inflammation to avoid deterioration, and in some cases that the area needs further evaluation.

A New Breast Health Assessment Paradigm - Thermography, BSE/CBE, Ultrasound, then MRI

Although scientific evidence supports elimination of mammography as a screening tool, it is currently considered the standard of care. Replacing it with a new breast health assessment paradigm is warranted and inevitable.  The new paradigm begins with thermography, a non-invasive physiological screening that can only serve to enhance all anatomical screenings that may follow, such as BSE/CBE, ultrasound and/or MRI.  Please understand though that because this paradigm is not yet accepted as the standard of care, most insurance companies will not cover a thermogram, nor an ultrasound or MRI without a "positive" or "suspicious" mammogram.  However, when choosing an MRI as an elective procedure, one can typically shop around and find a facility that will perform one without insurance for under $1,000.

New Study Shows This Vitamin Can Prevent Breast Cancer …

There are a number of lifestyle changes that can help prevent breast cancer from ever becoming a reality for you. For starters, we cannot discuss breast cancer without mentioning the importance of vitamin D. Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is easily one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in nearly every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain. Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D.

New research published in the journal Steroids has found that calcitriol inhibits the growth of cancer cells, including breast cancer cells, through the following mechanisms:¹⁰

• Cell cycle arrest
• Promotion of apoptosis (cancer cell death)
• Inhibition of invasion, metastasis and angiogenesis

Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis or programmed cell death. When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days!¹¹

It is my professional opinion that for those who are diagnosed with cancer it is  criminal malpractice not to recommend vitamin D and aggressively monitor a cancer patient's vitamin D level to get it between 70 and 100 ng/ml.

So please do watch my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to find out what your optimal vitamin D levels should be for prevention and treatment … and how to get them there. This is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer.

Eight More Breast Cancer Prevention Tips

Prevention truly is worth a pound of cure when it comes to cancer, and the following healthy lifestyle strategies can help you avoid ever becoming a cancer statistic.

• Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds upcancer growth.
• Optimize your vitamin D level, as mentioned. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 70-100 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available.
• Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating whole foods like those in mynutrition plan and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities, which are part of my Peak Fitness program. It's important to lose excess weight because excess estrogen is produced in fat tissue, which can contribute to cancer risk.
• Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
• Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
• Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
• Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
• Avoid xenoestrogens. Xenoestrogens are synthetic chemicals that mimic natural estrogens. They have been linked to a wide range of human health effects, including reduced sperm counts in men and increased risk of breast cancer in women. There are a large number of xenoestrogens, such as bovine growth hormones in commercial dairy, plastics like bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and parabens in personal care products, and chemicals used in non-stick materials, just to name a few.