Pancreatic Cancer, Brain Cancer, and Prostate Cancer

[Guest guest]

Poster's Comment: At this url

_http://www.jonbarron.org/baseline-health-program/cancer.php_

(http://www.jonbarron.org/baseline-health-program/cancer.php)

there are 4 audios on cancer which can be downloaded including Cancer: The

Big Lie.

Pancreatic Cancer, Brain Cancer, and Prostate Cancer

9/15/2008

Posted By: Jon Barron

_http://www.jonbarron.org/baseline-health-program/2008-09-15.php_

(http://www.jonbarron.org/baseline-health-program/2008-09-15.php)

 

I must have missed the announcement, but it sure looks like a military

" surge " was launched in September in the war on cancer. Most notable was the

news

that Katie Couric's star-studded " _Stand Up to Cancer_

(http://www.ecanadanow.com/news/health/stand-up-to-cancer-raises-over-100m-thank\

s-to-networks-20080908

..html) " telethon, which aired on the three main networks, raised $100

million dollars to " fight cancer. " In addition, the results of a whole series

of

new studies were announced in the last few days promoting major breakthroughs

in brain cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer. All in all, if you

were to believe the media, it would appear that we're finally (or more

accurately, once again) seeing the long-promised light at the end of the tunnel

in

the war on cancer. Ah, if only that were true.

Over the years, I've certainly taken some shots at the medical establishment

and doctors -- with more than a little justification. When it comes to

cancer, I've called them to task for:

* Thinking that the body actually is comprised of isolated parts that

can be treated separately, with no consideration of the whole

* Ignoring where cancer actually comes from

* Ignoring the role of diet in health and cancer

* Ignoring the role supplements can play in reducing the risk of

cancer

* Diminishing the role of environmental and dietary toxins in the

promotion of cancer

* Spending their time and your money looking for magic bullet cures

for cancer

* And treating cancer as though it were actually caused by a

_chemotherapy deficiency_

(http://www.jonbarron.org/baseline-health-program/06-06-2005.php)

Now, make no mistake, I am not anti-doctor. Unlike many in the alternative

health community, I am happy to give praise where praise is due. And as I

always like to point out, John Wayne Bobbitt was far better off with a surgeon

than an herbalist after his wife " adjusted " him. So what is it that I am

actually saying? It's that, yes, some day, there most likely will be some major

breakthroughs in cancer treatment that will allow you to abuse your body for

years on end and not have to pay the " cancer penalty. " But that day is not

today. And if you come down with brain, pancreatic, or prostate cancer in the

next

ten years and you're looking for your doctor to save your life, you're

making a bad bet. Quite simply, I'm saying that there is far less than meets the

eye in all of the stories we are seeing this month. But more importantly, I'm

also saying that you can immediately cut your risk of cancer by some 90%

without any need for new medical technology, pharmaceutical drugs, or genetic

breakthroughs.

Despite the fact that the Stand Up to Cancer telethon go the biggest play in

the media, the crux of the news this month is really about the release of

the new cancer studies. In fact, when you think about it, the $100 million

raised by Stand Up to Cancer is really nothing more than an extension of those

studies since it's going to be used to fund more research of the same type. If

these studies are truly advancing us in the war on cancer, then the money

will have great value. If the studies are only marginal in their real world

impact on cancer treatment, then the value of the money raised will be worth

significantly less. So let's look at the studies and see what value we're

getting

for our money.

Pancreatic and brain cancer studies

Scientists with the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center at the Johns Hopkins

University have managed to draw a _map of the genetic mutations_

(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145100.htm) involved in two

of the

most aggressive cancers:

* Glioblastoma (the most common form of brain cancer)

* Pancreatic cancer.

Researchers examined more than 20,000 genes in different groups of cancer

patients and found hundreds of genetic changes in those people afflicted with

pancreatic or brain cancer. Interestingly, they also found that the genetic

changes were not identical in the different tumors -- that, in fact, they

varied from person to person. The typical pancreatic cancer contained 63

genetic

alterations and the average brain tumor 60. Genes blamed for one person's

brain tumor were different from those found in the next patient. Although such

chaotic data might at first appear to complicate things, that's not necessarily

true. As Dr. Kenneth Kinzler from Johns Hopkins, who led the pancreatic

work, said, " Genes don't work alone. They function together in small groups

called pathways to perform the cell's necessary activities...Figure out which

genes cluster in which pathways and a simpler picture emerges. "

Out of all the hundreds of genetic alterations they observed, the Hopkins

team identified just 12 core pathways that were abnormal in most pancreatic

tumors. And in Nature, The Cancer Genome Atlas, researchers reported just three

core pathways at work in most glioblastomas. This certainly shrinks the

playing field, and as might be expected, companies have already jumped in and

are

researching drugs to block the particular enzyme pathways implicated in the

studies.

Another potential benefit of the studies, as suggested by researchers, is

that the work points to possible ways to catch cancer earlier, by tracing

mutant DNA floating through the bloodstream well before tumors themselves start

to

spread.

It's all very exciting! So what am I complaining about? What's my problem?

Actually, I see two:

1. Understanding that there are pathways and actually controlling those

pathways without significant side effects are two different things. How many

times have we seen trumpeted intellectual cancer breakthroughs fade into

oblivion within a couple of years? If an alternative health company failed to

make good on so many promises, the FDA would shut them down in a heartbeat.

Heck, _Smiling Bob's owner at Enzyte_

(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRwWKqK8FgMRhFIP8bgARsaYx54wD92QONF00) just

got 25 years for not delivering on his

promises to help with " male enhancement, " which is hardly in the same league

as failing to deliver on promised cures for cancer again and again and

again. Truly, it seems that cancer researchers get to operate under a different

set of rules. We spend _over $200 billion a year on cancer_

(http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/reprint/25/2/180) in the United States alone, and

the failure of

this money to produce meaningful results is never challenged. No one is held

accountable. In fact, failure just begets more money.

2. The second problem I have, though, is much bigger. It's that if you

actually look at these cancers (pancreatic, brain, and prostate) in their

totality (at the forest instead of the trees, if you will), it becomes readily

apparent that " inherited " genetic issues may indeed give you a predisposition

to getting these cancers, but that predisposition only affects a small

percentage of people who actually come down with them. The bulk of these

cancers

are caused by things that we can control. And, therefore, you can immediately

cut your chances of coming down with these cancers by some 90% simply by

making some different choices.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is that if I can back those two

statements up, then as a society, we are seriously heading down the wrong road.

So

let's take a look and see what the reality is.

Pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a common and highly fatal malignancy. _Approximately

32,000 cases will be diagnosed this year in the Unites States -- and

approximately 32,000 people will die from it_

(http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/BasicIntro.php) . Those, as we like to say in

the trade, are bad odds! Pancreatic

cancer is the fourth most frequent cause of cancer death after lung,

breast/prostate and colorectal cancer. The survival of patients with pancreatic

cancer

is dismal with most patients dying within 5 years due to cancer-related

complications.

Since 1950, the annual incidence of pancreatic cancer in the United States

has almost doubled from 5.3 to 9.2 cases per 100,000 people. The incidence is

rising at a similar rate in virtually every other developed country in the

world. It has been theorized that because the risk of developing pancreatic

cancer increases steadily with age, its rising incidence may reflect the fact

that the U.S. population is living longer than in 1950. Approximately

four-fifths of all cases occur after the age of 60; among 80- to 84-year-olds,

the

annual incidence is 90.2 cases per 100,000 population, 36 times the rate for

people between 40 and 44 years of age (2.5 per 100,000). Then again, the

increased incidence could just as easily be explained by more years of exposure

to

environmental factors and dietary choices that make the body more susceptible

to cancer. Is there any reason to believe this might be the case -- that age

is secondary to environment?

And the answer is yes.

First, pancreatic cancer is seen most often in developed, industrial

countries. The United States and northern European countries, including Great

Britain, have high rates; low rates are found in the African nations, South

America, the Near East, and India; and rates for southern Europe, Asia, and the

Far

East are in the middle of the range. Hmmm!

Second, the most important known risk factor for pancreatic cancer is

cigarette smoking. _Several reports from the U.S. Surgeon General_

(http://books.google.com/books?id=SLqoF-MZxUMC & pg=PA56 & lpg=PA56 & dq=Surgeon+Gener\

al+pancreatic+c

ancer+cigarette & source=web & ots=9WycGT-XWI & sig=e4yz9xjEnbavjYhnl7N3Dk-ydIY & hl=e

n & sa=X & oi=book_result & resnum=3 & ct=result#PPA56,M1) have indicated that the

risk of pancreatic cancer for cigarette smokers is 2-3 times that of

nonsmokers. The increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer followed the

increased

use of cigarettes that began after World War II. Evidence of the relationship

between smoking and pancreatic cancer is provided by the recent increase in

mortality from this disease among women, whose use of cigarettes has also

steadily increased. In fact, the death rate for women has gone up twice as fast

as the rate for men.

Further, scientists have reported that a diet high in _meat and fat may be

related to a 50% increase in your risk_

(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514268) of getting pancreatic cancer. And

in addition, one large study

suggested that _fruits and vegetables may reduce your risk by an equivalent

50%_

(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7492) (how poetic).

Finally,

a significant percentage of patients with cancer of the pancreas have worked

in occupations where they were exposed to solvents and petroleum compounds.

All of which brings us to the issue of genetics -- the family histories of

patients with pancreatic cancer, which would be indicative of possible genetic

factors for the disease. And yes, some limited evidence of familial

predisposition has been found -- but more frequently for endocrine than for

exocrine

tumors. (Note: endocrine tumors account for only about 10% of pancreatic

cancers.) That means that for 90% of pancreatic cancers, there is no indication

of any kind that genetic predisposition plays any significant role.

The bottom line is that the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that

the cause of most cases of pancreatic cancer is not hereditary -- that

genetics is not a primary causative factor. And yet, genetics is the area of

research your money has just funded -- not to mention, in all likelihood, a

chunk of

the $100 million raised by Stand Up to Cancer. That's got to give you a warm

fuzzy feeling.

Brain Cancer

Okay, that's just one part of the studies. What about brain cancer? Do the

results make more sense when it comes to glioblastomas? And the answer is: not

really.

The _statistics on brain cancer_

(http://www.oncologychannel.com/braincancer/index.shtml) are almost as grim as

for pancreatic cancer. Approximately

17,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with primary brain cancer each

year and nearly 13,000 die of the disease. The annual incidence of primary

brain cancer in children is about 3 per 100,000. Secondary brain cancer occurs

in 20--30% of patients whose original cancer has metastasized, and incidence

increases with age. In the United States, about 100,000 cases of secondary

brain cancer are diagnosed each year. But as bad as that sounds, it's getting

worse. The incidence of brain cancer is increasing -- dramatically.

In one study, a new analysis of data collected by the National Cancer

Institute's nationwide cancer surveillance program, _researchers at the National

Institute on Aging in Bethesda, Md_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2213902)

.., have determined that among people over the age of 75, the incidence of

brain tumors more than doubled from 1968 to 1985, the last year for which

statistics are available. In 1985, incidence rates for persons aged 75-79,

80-84,

and 85 years of age and over were up 187%, 394%, and 501%, respectively, over

rates in 1973/1974 -- or by as much as 23 percent a year.

Further confirming these results, several years ago, scientists at the

National Research Council in Washington, the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm,

and other institutions compared mortality figures from about 1968 to 1987 for

the United States, Britain, Italy, France, West Germany and Japan. They found

that among people 65 and older, _deaths from brain tumors rose in all nations

by some 200 percent for the period_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2035544) .

''There's a stunning increase in mortality'' from brain tumors, said Dr.

Devra Lee Davis, an author of the paper. ''It holds true for all countries, a

very sharp increase in a relatively short period of time.''

So once again, as with pancreatic cancer, the overwhelming scientific

evidence suggests that the cause of most cases of brain cancer is not

hereditary --

that genetics is not a primary causative factor. Genetics cannot account for

increased incidence rates of up to 500% in just 20 years. And yet, genetics

is the area of research your money has just funded -- not to mention, once

again in all likelihood, a chunk of the $100 million raised by Stand Up to

Cancer. So yet again, more warm fuzzies.

Oh, did I mention _cell phones_

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/03well.html) as a possible cause? I

probably shouldn't go there. The last time

_I posted a blog on the topic_

(http://www.jonbarron.org/blog_published/2008/06/cell_phones_pop_corn_toast_bra.\

html) , a number of people let me know, with

great passion, that the only way they'd give up their cell phones is if

someone pried them from their cold, dead hands -- which is looking more likely

all the time.

Prostate Cancer

The studies on prostate cancer are of a different type, but also point to

environmental and dietary factors as being its chief cause, not genetics.

First, there's the study out of the Wake Forest University School of

Medicine and the University of Wisconsin, which indicates that _men who have too

much

calcium in their bloodstreams may have an increased risk of fatal prostate

cancer_

(http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20080903/calcium-levels-predict-prost\

ate-cancer) .

According to Gary G. Schwartz, Ph.D., associate professor of cancer biology

and of epidemiology and prevention at Wake Forest, the study showed, " That

men in [the] upper range of the normal distribution of serum calcium

subsequently have an almost three-fold increased risk for fatal prostate

cancer. "

It should be pointed out that serum calcium ordinarily is tightly regulated

by the parathyroid hormone, so in normal situations there is little variation

in an individual's serum calcium over time regardless of diet or

supplementation. So where is the calcium coming from? Two possibilities stand

out:

1. Hormonal imbalance brought on by stress can easily throw calcium

blood levels out of whack. For example, a very damaging effect of adrenal

dysfunction is excessive cortisol production. Excessive cortisol production

causes

an increased calcium mobilization from the bones and into the bloodstream.

Hormonal imbalances can also be caused by exposure to chemical estrogens, which

can throw the parathyroid out of whack.

2. _A high acid diet_

(http://www.jonbarron.org/anti-aging-program/12-18-2006.php) forces your body

to pull calcium into the bloodstream to buffer

the high acidity since your blood cannot tolerate pH changes. What comprises a

high acid diet? Meat, dairy, cooked grains, sugar, alcohol, sodas, and most

fruit juices. Hmm. Does that sound like anyone you know?

And there are more studies

Other studies released this month include one out of the University of

Rochester Medical center that found that _men who regularly take aspirin and

other

non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have lower serum PSA levels_

(http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/09/09/psa-nsaids.html) and a study funded

by the

National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Program that found that

_taller men are more likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer_

(http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/09September/Pages/Heightandprostatecancer.aspx) .

Interestingly enough, although this might appear to have a genetic link, the

researchers did not think so. They speculated that is more likely the result of

childhood environmental factors such as diet and nutrition.

In any case, the key point is that once again, as with brain cancer and

pancreatic cancer, all of these studies point away from genetics as the primary

factor in causing prostate cancer, and yet again to environmental and dietary

factors.

So what have we learned about cancer and our health options?

Look, I don't mean to be a killjoy here. Ultimately, I believe that genetic

research will produce some major health advancements for humanity -- but that

day is not today. Significant genetic treatments for cancer are not on the

immediate horizon. And besides, why would you want to wait. We already know

how to reduce your risk of cancer by some 90% overnight by working with your

immune system -- your body's normal safeguard against cancer, regardless of

genetics.

Again, hats off to Katie Couric and the other news anchors for their Stand

Up to Cancer telethon that raised $100 million for research. Unfortunately,

it's unlikely that $100 million will produce much value -- not, at least, as

long as it continues to fund research that looks in the wrong place. Only about

10% of all cancers are strongly related to genetics. Fully 90% of all

cancers are connected with diet, lifestyle, exposure to toxins, and a

compromised

immune system -- all things we can exercise control over...now!

PS: For more on cancer (what causes it, how to prevent it, and even how to

potentially reverse it), check out my talk, _Cancer: the Big Lie_

(http://www.jonbarron.org/audio/audio_files/TalkR15.mp3) . It was recorded some

six years

ago -- and other than some minor adjustments on the statistics, it's as spot

on as ever. It's also free. And it's available now.