jump to navigation

The Dangers of DHEA June 15, 2015

Posted by Dreamhealer in Alternative medicine, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Cancer Treatment.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

DHEA Cancer

Written by: Dr. Adam McLeod, ND, BSc (Hons)

DHEA (Dehydroepiandrosterone) is often described as a wonder drug that is used by patients interested in its anti-aging effects. As we age the levels of DHEA in the blood start to decrease so the logic was that if patients were given this hormone then they would be able to partially reverse the aging process. There is evidence to suggest that indeed it improves many of the characteristics that we associate with aging.

Supplementation with DHEA is not safe for everyone as it is strongly associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer1,2. In response to this risk, supplement companies began to produce a molecule called 7-keto DHEA, which is a metabolite of DHEA. This was considered a safer alternative to DHEA because it does not break down into estrogen or testosterone4. It is true that when patients take 7-keto DHEA there is no statistically significant increase in hormone levels but this does not make it safe to use with breast cancer.

I have personally seen several patients with active estrogen positive breast cancer who were prescribed 7-keto DHEA by a medical doctor. This is a dangerous combination and it is reckless to prescribe this medication in this clinical situation. 7-keto DHEA is not safe for any patient with estrogen positive breast cancer. There are a number of obvious biochemical reasons for this contraindication. First of all there are absolutely no studies which indicate that this is safe with estrogen positive breast cancer. Secondly, just because the estrogen levels are not elevated does not mean that the estrogen receptor is not being stimulated.

Normally the receptors on the surface of a cell are only stimulated by a few specific molecules. The estrogen receptors are notoriously promiscuous. What this means is that they are stimulated by many different molecules as well as estrogen. One of those molecules is 7-keto DHEA. In other words, even though patients do not have elevations in estrogen levels the estrogen receptors are being directly stimulated by the 7-keto DHEA3. As far as the cancer cells are concerned, they will act as if they are being stimulated by estrogen even though the actual levels of estrogen remain unchanged.

In one study it was conclusively shown that 7-keto DHEA (aka 7-oxo DHEA) is a low affinity ligand activator of estrogen receptors. The estrogen activity in these cancer cell lines were significantly elevated compared to the controls. In this same study, the cancer cells (MCF-7 breast cancer cells) that were treated with 7-keto DHEA grew much faster than the controls. This simple study certainly raises concern about the use of this supplement in cancer patients. It is clearly misleading to state that 7-keto DHEA has all the positive effects of DHEA without any of the negative effects. This is simply not how our cells operate on the biochemical level.

Another obvious concern is that 7-keto DHEA is essentially structurally identical to DHEA. This means that its overall shape is so similar that it will stimulate estrogen receptors the same as if it was DHEA. The estrogen receptors on cancer cells cannot tell the difference between 7-keto DHEA and DHEA. As far as the cancer is concerned it is the same thing. Of course the DHEA will not stimulate these receptors as strongly as estrogen but they still increase the activity which is the complete opposite of what you want to do with estrogen positive breast cancer. Conventional cancer therapies work very hard to reduce estrogen activity as much as possible because this activity acts as a signal for these cancer cells to grow5.

It is important that more patients become aware of this serious concern because it is difficult to sift through the mountains of information on the web. Unfortunately, there are still doctors that are prescribing this medication to estrogen positive breast cancer patients. The simple explanation that estrogen levels are unaffected does not mean that it is safe. Biology is much more complex than simply monitoring the level of a few arbitrary hormones in the blood. There is significant cross talk between these different pathways in cells and this well understood biological concept also applies to the clinical setting.

Dr. Adam McLeod is a Naturopathic Doctor (ND), BSc. (Hon) Molecular biology, First Nations Healer, Motivational Speaker and International Best Selling Author.
He currently practices at his clinic, Yaletown Naturopathic Clinic, in Vancouver, BC where he focuses on integrative oncology.

References:
1) Tworoger, S. S.; Missmer, S. A.; Eliassen, A. H. et al. (2006). “The association of plasma DHEA and DHEA sulfate with breast cancer risk in predominantly premenopausal women”. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 15 (5): 967–71.

2) Key, T.; Appleby, P.; Barnes, I.; Reeves, G. (2002). “Endogenous sex hormones and breast cancer in postmenopausal women: reanalysis of nine prospective studies”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94 (8): 606–16.

3) Michael Miller, Kristy K., et al. “DHEA metabolites activate estrogen receptors alpha and beta.” Steroids 78.1 (2013): 15-25.

4) Lardy, H; Kneer N, Wei Y, Partridge B, Marwah P (1998). “Ergosteroids II: Biologically Active Metabolites and Synthetic Derivatives of Dehydroepiandrosterone”. Steroids 63 (3): 158–165.

5) Janni W, Hepp P. Adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: Outcomes and safety. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010; 36:249–261.

The Dangers of DHEA January 12, 2015

Posted by Dreamhealer in Anti-Aging, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Naturopathic Medicine.
Tags: , , ,
4 comments

Best Vancouver Naturopath

Written by Dr. Adam McLeod, BSc, ND

DHEA (Dehydroepiandrosterone) is often described as a wonder drug that is used by patients interested in its anti-aging effects. As we age the levels of DHEA in the blood start to decrease so the logic was that if patients were given this hormone then they would be able to partially reverse the aging process. There is evidence to suggest that indeed it improves many of the characteristics that we associate with aging.

Supplementation with DHEA is not safe for everyone as it is strongly associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer1,2. In response to this risk, supplement companies began to produce a molecule called 7-keto DHEA, which is a metabolite of DHEA. This was considered a safer alternative to DHEA because it does not break down into estrogen or testosterone4. It is true that when patients take 7-keto DHEA there is no statistically significant increase in hormone levels but this does not make it safe to use with breast cancer.

I have personally seen several patients with active estrogen positive breast cancer who were prescribed 7-keto DHEA by a medical doctor. This is a dangerous combination and it is reckless to prescribe this medication in this clinical situation. 7-keto DHEA is not safe for any patient with estrogen positive breast cancer. There are a number of obvious biochemical reasons for this contraindication. First of all there are absolutely no studies which indicate that this is safe with estrogen positive breast cancer. Secondly, just because the estrogen levels are not elevated does not mean that the estrogen receptor is not being stimulated.

Normally the receptors on the surface of a cell are only stimulated by a few specific molecules. The estrogen receptors are notoriously promiscuous. What this means is that they are stimulated by many different molecules as well as estrogen. One of those molecules is 7-keto DHEA. In other words, even though patients do not have elevations in estrogen levels the estrogen receptors are being directly stimulated by the 7-keto DHEA3. As far as the cancer cells are concerned, they will act as if they are being stimulated by estrogen even though the actual levels of estrogen remain unchanged.

In one study it was conclusively shown that 7-keto DHEA (aka 7-oxo DHEA) is a low affinity ligand activator of estrogen receptors. The estrogen activity in these cancer cell lines were significantly elevated compared to the controls. In this same study, the cancer cells (MCF-7 breast cancer cells) that were treated with 7-keto DHEA grew much faster than the controls. This simple study certainly raises concern about the use of this supplement in cancer patients. It is clearly misleading to state that 7-keto DHEA has all the positive effects of DHEA without any of the negative effects. This is simply not how our cells operate on the biochemical level.

Another obvious concern is that 7-keto DHEA is essentially structurally identical to DHEA. This means that its overall shape is so similar that it will stimulate estrogen receptors the same as if it was DHEA. The estrogen receptors on cancer cells cannot tell the difference between 7-keto DHEA and DHEA. As far as the cancer is concerned it is the same thing. Of course the DHEA will not stimulate these receptors as strongly as estrogen but they still increase the activity which is the complete opposite of what you want to do with estrogen positive breast cancer. Conventional cancer therapies work very hard to reduce estrogen activity as much as possible because this activity acts as a signal for these cancer cells to grow5.

It is important that more patients become aware of this serious concern because it is difficult to sift through the mountains of information on the web. Unfortunately, there are still doctors that are prescribing this medication to estrogen positive breast cancer patients. The simple explanation that estrogen levels are unaffected does not mean that it is safe. Biology is much more complex than simply monitoring the level of a few arbitrary hormones in the blood. There is significant cross talk between these different pathways in cells and this well understood biological concept also applies to the clinical setting.

Dr. Adam McLeod is a Naturopathic Doctor (ND), BSc. (Hon) Molecular biology, First Nations Healer, Motivational Speaker and International Best Selling Author http://www.dreamhealer.com

He currently practices at his clinic, Yaletown Naturopathic Clinic, in Vancouver, BC where he focuses on integrative oncology. http://www.yaletownnaturopathic.com

References:

1) Tworoger, S. S.; Missmer, S. A.; Eliassen, A. H. et al. (2006). “The association of plasma DHEA and DHEA sulfate with breast cancer risk in predominantly premenopausal women”. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 15 (5): 967–71.

2) Key, T.; Appleby, P.; Barnes, I.; Reeves, G. (2002). “Endogenous sex hormones and breast cancer in postmenopausal women: reanalysis of nine prospective studies”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94 (8): 606–16.

3) Michael Miller, Kristy K., et al. “DHEA metabolites activate estrogen receptors alpha and beta.” Steroids 78.1 (2013): 15-25.

4) Lardy, H; Kneer N, Wei Y, Partridge B, Marwah P (1998). “Ergosteroids II: Biologically Active Metabolites and Synthetic Derivatives of Dehydroepiandrosterone”. Steroids 63 (3): 158–165.

5) Janni W, Hepp P. Adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: Outcomes and safety. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010; 36:249–261.

It’s Time for a New Approach to Mammograms February 13, 2014

Posted by Dreamhealer in Alternative medicine, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Diet, Dreamhealer, Energy Healing, Health, Integrative Medicine, Naturopathic Medicine, Press, Research, Skeptics.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
10 comments

By: Charles J Wright

Dreamhealer_cancer

When first introduced four decades ago, breast cancer screening with mammography was widely regarded as an important tool in the fight against a terrible disease. It seemed obvious that the earlier it could be diagnosed the more lives could be saved. Aggressive treatment, it was thought, would prevent the cancer from spreading through the body. A huge amount of research evidence since then has slowly and painfully led to a different conclusion.

It is now clear that the benefits of screening mammography have been greatly exaggerated and the serious adverse effects all but ignored in the enthusiasm to support breast screening programs. It’s time for these programs to be reconsidered.

It must be emphasized that this is the case for population screening of healthy women, not those with extra high risk factors.

This is a very unpleasant message for modern developed societies where three generations of women have been led to believe that regular mammograms will save their lives and where an enormous related industry has been built up, but it is time to face the facts.

Unscientific opinions and powerful vested interests abound on this subject, so it is essential to focus on well-conducted studies from independent sources to summarize the evidence. One of the most trusted of these, the Cochrane Collaboration, has been studying screening mammography intensively. Its most recent bulletin states that the benefit of screening 2,000 women regularly for 10 years is that one woman may have her life prolonged. Of the other 1,999 women, at least 200 will have false positive mammograms leading to biopsies and surgery, and at least 10 women will be falsely diagnosed with breast cancer and consequently subjected to unnecessary surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

This problem, called over-diagnosis, occurs when a biopsy reveals microscopic cells that are currently labeled as “cancer” by the pathologist, but with uncertain potential to cause any significant problem for the patient in the future. The “c” word inevitably causes fear and distress for the patient and an aggressive treatment plan from the doctors. This is now widely recognized, even by the U.S. National Cancer Institute which has recently recommended that these uncertain “cancers” should instead be labeled “IDLE” (indolent lesions) until research can help us differentiate those that need treatment from those that do not.

Now we have more evidence. The Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study published this week in the British Medical Journal, and widely reported in the international media, solidly confirms that there is no upside to breast screening healthy women in terms of mortality benefit in exchange for the downside of all the adverse consequences. In this study, 90,000 women aged 40-59 were randomly allocated to the mammography screening program or to annual physical examination only, with follow up to 25 years. The mortality was the same in both groups (500 in the first group and 505 in the second).

Adverse consequences from screening can include false negatives (a cancer is growing but missed by the mammogram), and potentially cancer-causing cumulative X-ray exposure. Not to mention the anxiety, pain and discomfort that women experience with the procedure and the huge cost of these programs to the health care system.

This new study, along with the Cochrane analysis, represent the beginning of a growing consensus among scientists and clinical epidemiologists that the evidence no longer supports population screening of healthy women with mammography. Several prominent female U.K. doctors have gone public about choosing not to have breast cancer screening, including the editor of the BMJ, the past president of the Royal College of GPs, and the professor of obstetrics at King’s College London.

Nobody can be happy about all of this disappointing news with its serious public, professional and political implications, but surely we cannot ignore it. The hope that breast screening could cause a reduction in the mortality from this terrible disease was at first well placed 40 years ago, but it is no longer possible to advocate for an intervention that carries such a tiny (if any) likelihood of benefit along with such a huge burden of harmful consequences.

The very essence of science is about seeking truth through the constant cycle of evidence, analysis and revision. In response to a hostile question, John Maynard Keynes famously remarked “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” We should heed that lesson here.

It may take a long time to dispel the false hope that has been given to women with mammogram screening, but the very least and immediate response should be the development of a mandatory consent form for women to sign before screening that distinguishes the most recent and overwhelming evidence from the current inappropriate enthusiasm. Women would then be empowered to make an informed choice.

Public health agencies should also consider a comprehensive plan for public re-education about screening mammography, followed by the gradual dismantling of population breast screening programs across the country.

Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/now-that-we-know-mammograms-are-flawed-its-time-to-change-course/article16847982/

For more information on alternative medicine check out http://www.dreamhealer.com

Click here to see a list of upcoming Dreamhealer workshops

Visualize the Latest Research August 17, 2012

Posted by Dreamhealer in Alternative medicine, Anal Cancer, Brain Cancer, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Colon Cancer, Dreamhealer, Energy Healing, exercise, Healing, Health, Kidney Cancer, Lung Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Skin Cancer.
add a comment

Nearly every day brings news of a breakthrough in cancer research. There are many interesting studies that you will read about. In your mind’s eye, see yourself involved with any cutting edge research that captures your attention. Be in­spired to keep up with the latest research and participate in your own way.

Recently there was major press about the “Cancer Bomb”, a new technique that is currently being tested in Israel for cancer tumors. (The Province December 14, 2011) It is essen­tially a pin-sized radioactive implant that beams short-range alpha particles from within the tumor to kill cancer cells. Rather than bombarding the tumor from the outside, this implanted device acts like a cluster bomb from within the tumor until it eventually disintegrates. Particles are continuously emitted from the implanted device. This new technique even causes a significant number of people to develop immunity against the return of the tumor, according to one statement.

Research is currently exploring the use of this technique, however research trials are limited- yet you have the ability to visualize this now!

Radioactive Implant Visualization:

* Focus your mind on the location of the tumor.

* Visualize injecting a pin-sized device directly into the tumor, which radiates out beams of pure white light.

* Know that this light is attracted like a magnet to every cell of the tumor.

* Generate the imaginary radioactive waves and particles then focus them on the tumor.

* In your mind’s eye see the tumor cells absorbing the waves of light until they die.

* Once all cancer cells are dead, see them disintegrate so there is no longer any evidence of any cancer ever being there. Change all of the surrounding cells to perfectly healthy cells again.

* KNOW that your intentions are influencing your healing.

For more information on energy healing please visit my website: http://dreamhealer.com/

Feel free to connect with me through my social media pages:

Twitter

Facebook

Google+

YouTube

LinkedIn (Email: questions@dreamhealer.com)

Major breast cancer breakthrough announced at BC Cancer Agency December 12, 2009

Posted by Dreamhealer in Breast Cancer, Research.
add a comment

For the first time in history, BC Cancer Agency scientists in British Columbia, Canada have decoded all of the three billion letters in the DNA sequence of a metastatic lobular breast cancer tumour, a type of breast cancer which accounts for about 10 per cent of all breast cancers, and have found all of the mutations, or “spelling” mistakes that caused the cancer to spread.

The landmark study, which will be published October 8th as the cover story in the prestigious international science journal Nature, helps unlock the secrets of how cancer begins and spreads, thus pointing the way to the development of new breast cancer treatment targets and therapies.

“One in nine women is expected to develop breast cancer, and breast cancer accounts for 29 per cent of all cancer diagnoses for B.C. women,” said Health Services Minister Kevin Falcon. “As a result of the efforts of the scientists behind the study, this breakthrough finding gives further hope to the thousands of women with this terrible disease.” Read More…

Tamoxifen Can Cause Aggressive Cancer Tumours August 29, 2009

Posted by Dreamhealer in Big Pharma, Breast Cancer.
add a comment

Long-term users of cancer prevention drug Tamoxifen it is reported, could develop rare cancers from taking it, since it is the drug of choice, prescribed after the detection of breast cancer or surgery. This is disturbing news for healthgivers and breast cancer survivors, many of whom are long term users of tamoxifen, with a 20% success rate in preventing further incidences of cancer.Tamoxifen, which is the most prescribed and oldest selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) prescribed for women with breast cancer and rare but aggressive tumours, as it is known to block estrogen receptors in the breast, inhibiting their growth. Which is why, tamoxifen so successful in preventing a recurrence of common breast tumours, and while it has come under scrutiny of late, some suggest the risks still outweigh the downside.The journal Cancer Research reports a study of 1100-women with estrogen sensitive tumours. Women who took tamoxifen for 5-years, there was a 60% less risk of a recurrence of estrogen sensitive breast cancer. Though, they were four times more likely to develop rare and extremely aggressive breast cancer that was not estrogen sensitive, rendering Tamoxifen ineffective.The medical community, in its typical reaction to bad news, has begun to question the report and its methodology, and it is especially bad news, because tamoxifen is used as the frontline defence in the fight against cancer.The report published in Cancer Research, is not based on any research study, rather only on observation made by the esteemed Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, Seattle, WA, which has long been known for comprehensive scientific research and reporting.According to Dr. Li, the author of the report, long term tamoxifen usage increases a four-fold risk for a more aggressive, difficult-to-treat cancer type in the opposite breast or contralateral, to the initial tumour.The current report is pursuant to Dr. Li’s previously published findings in 2001, which study of 9,000-women over the age of 50 followed from 1990 and 1999, reported the same findings i. e. a five-fold increased risk of estrogen-receptor (ER)-negative breast cancers in breast cancer survivors taking tamoxifen.Tamoxifen use has been seen to reduce ER-positive contralateral breast cancers, which is the most common type of cancer, found in two-thirds of the cases diagnosed by 20%. With new findings showing a 500% increase in estrogen-receptor (ER)-negative breast cancers, breast cancer survivors and caregivers need to assess risks vs. benefits, including looking for alternative treatments.New homeopathy and botanical medicine research looks promising for both cancer prevention and cancer relapse, minus side effects triggered by tamoxifen and other drugs.

Submitted by: Anna Tomova

Breast Cancer Screening May Lead to Overdiagnosis July 22, 2009

Posted by Dreamhealer in Breast Cancer.
add a comment

Researchers from Denmark have reported that one-third of women may be unnecessarily treated for breast cancer as a result of public screening programs that over-diagnose the disease. The results of this study appeared in an early online publication in the British Medical Journal on July 9, 2009.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States, with approximately 180,000 cases diagnosed each year. The best “treatment” for cancer is to prevent its occurrence or to detect it early when it is most treatable. As a result, screening for breast cancer has become standard for women over 40 as well as women who are at high risk of developing the disease. Read More…

Breast cancer survival in Canada and the USA: meta-analytic evidence of a Canadian advantage in low-income areas July 22, 2009

Posted by Dreamhealer in Breast Cancer.
add a comment

Conclusions More inclusive health care insurance coverage in Canada vs the USA, particularly among each country’s relatively poor people, seems the most plausible explanation for such Canadian advantages. Provision of health care for all Americans would likely prevent countless early deaths, particularly among the relatively poor.

Keywords Breast cancer, socio-economic factors, place, survival, node positive breast cancer, meta-analysis, health insurance, single payer, CanadaUSA Read More…

Exposed: 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You’re Not Supposed to Know March 26, 2009

Posted by Dreamhealer in Breast Cancer, Cancer.
add a comment

With Breast Cancer Awareness month fully upon us once again, retail stores have been invaded with everything pink, including “pink ribbon” candies and personal care products made with blatantly cancer-causing ingredients. Retail grocery stores like Safeway even hit up customers for donations at the cash register, promising to raise funds to find “the cure for cancer.” Read More…

%d bloggers like this: