Fwd: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter (11/29/03)

[Guest guest]

Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:13:23 -0800

 

Cancer Decisions

THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter (11/29/03)

 

----------------------

Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly CancerDecisions.com

Newsletter #110 11/29/03

----------------------

 

 

 

A CLOSER LOOK AT CORAL CALCIUM

 

 

If you had insomnia any time over the past year, you

probably know about coral calcium. For many months, a

self-described scientist named Robert Barefoot has been

interviewed in the wee hours on what appeared to be a

talk show named " A Closer Look " . In fact, " A Closer

Look " was actually a slick infomercial featuring two

promoters, one of whom played the role of intrepid

reporter while the other played a medical researcher.

The interviewer, Kevin Trudeau, pitched softballs at

Mr. Barefoot, who, predictably, hit them out of the

ballpark every time.

 

 

The topic of discussion was the purported health

benefits of calcium, and in particular a food

supplement derived from the coral that surrounds the

island of Okinawa in southern Japan. The Gospel of

Coral Calcium came wrapped in the rhetoric of

Alternative Medicine and was spread by Mr. Barefoot

with folksy zeal. Mr. Trudeau gaped in wonder as the

revelations came pouring out of his interlocutor's

mouth.

 

 

In June 2003, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

belatedly filed suit in an Illinois court, charging

Mr. Barefoot and his interview partner with false

advertising. The country's #1 infomercial was suddenly

yanked from the air and insomniacs thereafter had to

make do instead with promotions for electronic

abdominal exercise belts and the like.

 

 

The FTC was urged to action not only by the usual

opponents of complementary and alternative medicine

(CAM) but also by the Council for Responsible Nutrition

(CRN), one of the dietary supplement industry's leading

trade associations. Unfortunately, by the time that the

FTC acted, the coral calcium fad had spread like

wildfire throughout American society. Even after the

FTC order, pop-up displays of the stuff were still

prominently featured, at around $15 per bottle, at the

checkout stands of many pharmacies, health food stores

and warehouse-style retailers. It had become a

pervasive part of the culture.

 

 

Naturally, the hype surrounding coral calcium has also

permeated the Internet. If you enter the phrase " coral

calcium " into Google you come up with 157,000 sites. A

plethora of websites repeat Mr. Barefoot's claims that

more than 200 diseases, from cancer to the common cold,

can be cured simply by taking coral calcium

supplements.

 

 

Given the confidence with which coral calcium's

proponents extol its benefits, you might think there is

a huge amount of scientific research on the topic. But

while the health effects of the mineral calcium are

well researched, a search of the National Library of

Medicine's giant database, PubMed, reveals just 10

items on coral calcium published since 1966. Two of

these are recent newsletters critiquing the coral

calcium phenomenon. Most of the others concern the use

of coral as a bone graft substitute in surgery. There

is only one small clinical study of a dozen healthy

volunteers, which suggests the possibility that

" calcium of coral origin is better absorbed from the

intestine than calcium of calcium carbonate origin on

the average " (Ishitani 1998). The scientific rationale

for millions of people to add expensive coral calcium

to their diet apparently rests on this solitary

Japanese study of 12 people.

 

 

 

Does Calcium Cure or Prevent Cancer?

 

 

 

I will enumerate here just a few of Mr. Barefoot's many

assertions concerning cancer and will compare his

statements to the scientific record.

 

 

I have taken as my text a transcript of his infomercial

that is available at the FTC website.

 

 

In his books, articles and television infomericals Mr.

Barefoot talks as if there were a vast amount of data

to support the use of calcium as a preventative as well

as a treatment for cancer. He focuses on a 1998 study,

carried out in New York City and widely reported in the

media at the time. He claims that this study

demonstrates that calcium can make cancerous tissue

revert to normal and draws the conclusion that a lack

of calcium is a major cause of cancer as well as of

most other degenerative diseases.

 

 

Trudeau: " …[T]here's a connection you believe to be

between specifically cancer and the lack of calcium in

someone's diet? "

 

 

Barefoot: " It's not just cancer. It's all degenerative

diseases, lupus, diabetes, MS, cancer. The link is the

calcium factor…[L]ast year, the Journal of the AMA…had

huge articles on how cancer is reversed by calcium

supplements and they went so far as to say that

epithelial cancer cells would grow back to normal,

which means the cancer is no longer there. "

 

 

This is a major distortion of the facts. The study that

Mr. Barefoot is referring to was carried out by Peter

R. Holt, MD, and his colleagues at St. Luke's/Roosevelt

Hospital and Columbia University in New York City. In

this study, 70 people who had previously had surgery to

remove colon polyps (polypectomies) were put on diets

containing low-fat dairy products. These products

delivered up to 1,200 milligrams (mg) per day of

dietary calcium. After 6 to 12 months, there was a

significant reduction in the proliferation of

epithelial, or surface, cells in the colons of those

who ingested the high-calcium diet. A shift towards

more normal cells appeared. The authors concluded that

" increasing the daily intake of calcium by up to 1,200

mg via low-fat dairy food in subjects at risk for

colonic neoplasia reduces proliferative activity of

colonic epithelial cells and restores markers of normal

cellular differentiation " (Holt 1998).

 

 

This study implies that people at risk of colon cancer

(and especially those who have had colonic polyps

removed) would do well to consume foods with around

1,200 mg of calcium per day. This could be achieved,

for example, by drinking 2 cups of 1% fat milk (300 mg

of calcium per cup), eating 8 ounces of low-fat yogurt

(415 mg), and an ounce of Swiss cheese (272 mg).

 

 

The important things to notice about the Holt study are

(1) it was relatively small; (2) it did not concern

colon cancer, as Barefoot claims, but colonic polyps,

which are not cancer itself but merely a risk factor

for the future development of malignant disease; and

(3) the source of the calcium was dietary, particularly

dairy, and not coral calcium supplements. These are all

important considerations. Therefore, to state or even

imply that these findings substantiate the claim that

" coral calcium cures cancer " is simply outrageous.

 

 

Nor, unfortunately, do any other studies support this

contention.

 

 

Colon: In 2002, a similar study was carried out in the

Netherlands. It found that the proliferation of

epithelial cells in the colons of patients who had a

precancerous condition was " not affected by

supplementation with 1g[ram per day] of calcium… " (van

Gorkom 2002).

 

 

Esophagus: In a large study in China, patients who were

at high risk of esophageal cancer were given calcium

supplements. After 11 years' of follow-up, 10 percent

of the patients in the calcium group had developed

esophageal cancer compared to 8 percent in the placebo

group. The authors concluded that " calcium

supplementation did not produce apparent long-term

effects " on the development of esophageal cancer (Wang

2002). In fact, it may have slightly increased the

risk.

 

 

Rectum: In 1995, researchers at Dartmouth medical

school conducted a study of patients who had a prior

history of colorectal cancer. Could calcium supplements

decrease the recurrence rate of cancer-like changes in

the rectum? The answer was no. " Calcium supplementation

does not decrease rectal mucosal proliferation…in

patients with previous large-bowel adenomas. This

study, therefore, does not provide evidence for an

anti-carcinogenic effect of calcium " (Baron 1995).

 

 

Prostate: Far from diminishing the incidence of

prostate cancer, calcium in dairy may inhibit the

absorption of vitamin D and thereby promote the growth

of prostate cancer. According to the Physicians' Health

Study, men who consume more than 600 mg per day of

dietary calcium had a 32 percent higher risk of

prostate cancer than those who consumed 150 or fewer

milligrams per day.

 

 

" These results support the hypothesis that dairy

products and calcium are associated with a greater risk

of prostate cancer, " Harvard scientists wrote (Chan

2001). Another study of over 1,200 men in King County,

Washington, showed that the use of calcium supplements

was associated with a small increase in the risk of

developing prostate cancer. While the jury may still be

out on exactly how great an influence dietary calcium

exerts on the development of prostate cancer, there is

no data that I am aware of to suggest that dietary

calcium diminishes the risk of prostate cancer or

exerts any effect at all on the outcome of established

disease.

 

 

I do not mean to imply that calcium per se is

unhealthful. On the contrary, it is a key dietary

component, vital to many bodily functions. But its

relationship to cancer is complicated, as are so many

things in science, and one can find data both to

support and to disprove the benefit of dietary calcium

or calcium supplementation. At the moment, the

relationship of calcium to cancer incidence is an open

question, although the preponderance of data is not

encouraging. However, the evidence so far thoroughly

refutes the simplistic notions that calcium

supplementation, by itself, is (a) necessarily

beneficial to cancer patients; (b) can prevent this or

any other chronic disease; or © that calcium derived

from coral is intrinsically more healthful or

biologically active than that derived from dietary

sources.

 

 

(To be concluded with references next week.)

 

 

 

--Ralph W. Moss, PhD

 

 

 

 

---------------

 

 

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

 

 

 

The news and other items in this newsletter are

intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in

this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for

professional medical advice.

 

 

--------------

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please do not REPLY to this

letter. All replies to this email address are

automatically deleted by the server and your

question or concern will not be seen. If you have

questions or concerns, use our form at

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/contact.html

Thank you.

 

 

To SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER: Please go to

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/subscr.html

and follow the instructions to be automatically

added to this list. Thank you.

 

=====

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now