INTEGRATIVE HEALTH
EDUCATION
A monthly
review of 100 medical journals
Volume 11 � Number 2 �
February 2010
EDITOR’S NOTE
“Until America has learned to love literature not as
an amusement, not as a mere doggerel to memorize in
college, but for its humanizing and ennobling energy,
she will not have succeeded in that high sense which
alone makes a nation out of people; that which raises it
from a dead name to a living power”.[1]
The United States is engaged in the
process of creating “a more perfect union”. We are not
there yet, as suggested by the United States getting
ranked 37th
in the world on health parameters, despite spending
about double what leading nations spend per patient each
year.[2] We must work on the economic and political
issues that have created this sorry state of affairs;
doctors should assume the leadership our citizens have
entrusted the profession with. Regrettably, some:
“Physicians are falling further into blatant
commercialization and politization of medicine [through]
government policies and health care businesses pursued
in the name of health care.”
“We want to jealously guard our responsibility of
first serving each patient, and not allow ourselves to
become the voices of commerce.”
“It is time to organize ourselves to speak about what
we can do for patients, to let patients speak of what we
do for them, to spell out the conditions that allow us
to practice medicine, rather than become victims of
commercialization in medicine. If we want to be
technicians, we need only allow current conditions to go
unchallenged. If we want to remain doctors, we will have
to act decisively to address the best interest of each
patient”.[3]
We need to humanize health care,[4] and
stop considering it a business. Literature can help us
do that. Hugo Rodier, MD
About
TIME
Eleven years ago I was rebuffed by medical
students in Spain when I tried to share with them the
exciting breakthroughs in nutrition science in general,
and nutrition and genetic function in particular.
Understandably, years of conditioning did not let them
consider the possibility that OUR GENES ARE NOT CAST IN
STONE. I wonder what they may say now that TIME
magazine has made these wonderful and hopeful
concepts available to the general public. Its cover
issue on January 18th
2010 cleverly says it all: our genes are fluid.
The food we
eat and the environment we live in, and even our
emotions influence the way our genes are copied into
functional messengers. In practical terms, this means
that we can change genetic tendencies. If we stop eating
processed food, clean up our environment and live
simpler lives with less emotional drama and better
relationships, we can doge genetic bullets that may hold
us captive in fear.
So, if your
mom has breast cancer, or your dad died of a heart
attack, you have a great chance to change your genetic
script and avoid those problems.
The concepts
of NUTRIGENETICS, NUTRIGENOMICS and EPIGENETICS will
continue to be resisted for a while. Even as more
information comes out on these topics, Big Pharma will
try to persuade you that the answer lays in developing
new and expensive drugs to work on your genes, rather
than the simpler and wiser concepts herein outlined.
This is why I now present you with the raw evidence from
leading journals (I am just a messenger):
Association of Marine Omega-3 Fatty Acid Levels With
Telomeric Aging in Patients With Coronary Heart
Disease, JAMA 2010; 303: 250 – 257
Omega oils lengthen the tail of
chromosomes, thereby increasing lifespan and decreasing
the risk of cancer, heart attacks and chronic diseases.
We have already discussed the Nobel Prize in Medicine
research on telomeres and longevity.
Multivitamins, Folate, and Green Vegetables Protect
against Gene Promoter Methylation in the Aerodigestive
Tract of Smokers, J. Cancer Research 2010;70:
568-574.
“Dietary regimens to prevent cancer might be monitored
by gauging the methylation status of tumor suppressor
genes detected in sputum, which includes exfoliated
aerodigestive cells. Logistic regression models were
used to identify associations between methylation
status and 21 dietary variables hypothesized to
affect the acquisition of gene methylation.
Significant protection against methylation was observed
for leafy green vegetables [odds ratio (OR) =
0.83 per 12 monthly servings; 95% confidence
interval (95% CI), 0.74–0.93] and folate (OR,
0.84 per 750 µg/d; 95% CI, 0.72–0.99). Protection
against gene methylation was also seen with current
use of multivitamins (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40–0.83).
This is the first cohort-based study to identify
dietary factors associated with reduced promoter
methylation in cells exfoliated from the airway
epithelium of smokers. Novel interventions to
prevent lung cancer should be developed based on
the ability of diet and dietary
supplements to affect reprogramming of the
epigenome”.
OK, calm
down. I only wish to give you a flavor of the exciting
research that is being ignored by “mainstream”
practices. That mouthful means that our genes need
plenty of vitamin B to replicate well, especially in
smokers who burn up a lot of antioxidants. Eat your
veggies! Antioxidants in green tea also counteract the
toxic effects of smoking.[5]
Obesity
and Breast Cancer, J. Cancer Research 2010 70: 4-7.
“AMP kinase, a master regulator of cellular energy
metabolism, may provide a key link between
obesity-associated inflammation and increased breast
cancer risk”.
We have known that obesity, pre diabetes
and diabetes increase our risk of cancer since Dr.
Warburg won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1931. He
determined that “obesity and carbohydrate excess
predisposes people to cancer…[This is why] caloric
restriction has been shown to lower 60 % for cancers.”
(“Cancer’s Sweet Tooth: the Janus effect of glucose
metabolism in tumorigenesis.”)[6] Dr. Warburg went
on to say that:
“The prime cause of cancer is the
replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body
cells by a fermentation of sugar. All normal body cells
meet their energy needs by respiration of oxygen,
whereas cancer cells meet their energy needs in great
part by fermentation. All normal body cells are thus
obligate aerobes, whereas cancer cells are partial
anaerobes… Oxygen is dethroned in the cancer cells and
replaced by an energy-yielding reaction of the lowest
living forms, a fermentation of sugar.”[7]
It’s shocking to contemplate that obesity
causes 100K cancers each year.[8]
Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I Regulates the Liver
Microenvironment in Obese Mice and Promotes Liver
Metastasis, J. Cancer Research 2010 70: 57-67.
“To facilitate liver metastasis, IGF-1 must act beyond
the tumor cell to support to obesity-associated
inflammatory processes in the tumor microenvironment”.
Translation:
IGF-1, which is much like growth hormone, is
dysfunctional in obesity; this promotes tumor formation
and metastasis.
The
Nicotinamide Phosphoribosyltransferase: A
Molecular Link between Metabolism, Inflammation, and
Cancer, J. Cancer Research 2010;70: 8-11.
“NAMPT has properties of a positive biological
modifier of NAD-dependent inflammation and cell growth
that prompt interest in it as a pharmacological target
for cancer treatment”.
Translation: the energy and information
found in whole food lowers the inflammation/oxidation
caused by processed foods, toxins and stress; said
inflammation leads to DNA mutations associated with
cancer.
If we are not mindful of these
DNA-nutrition issues our risk of cancer will be higher.
If we unfortunately develop cancer, we will be offered
chemotherapy. But, “therapies that are less effective
against cancer stem cells may quicken tumor evolution,
increasing tumor heterogeneity and speeding the
development of tumor progression and drug resistance”.[9]
In other words, the surviving cancer cells may be more
aggressive and more resistant to treatment, much like
bacteria when antibiotics are overused or misused.
Another problem with chemotherapy in
particular and pharmaceuticals in general are the steep
prices. They have increased 9.3% in 2009 but inflation
at the same time was down 0.3%. “It is hard to escape
the conclusion that the industry is positioning the
pricing of its products for enactment of the new health
reform legislation”.[10]
Hiroshima revisited
We have been told that radiologic studies
are fairly safe. True, but not when it comes to CT
scans; they have been shown to impart the same risk
of developing cancer that survivors of Hiroshima’s
atomic bomb have shown.[11] A CT may expose you to the
same radiation seen with 30 to 442 chest radiographs,
depending on the settings at a given clinic.[12]
“We estimated that approximately 29, 000 future
cancers could be related to CT scans performed in
the US in 2007. The largest contributions were
from scans of the abdomen, pelvis, chest, and head, as
well as from chest CT angiography. One-third of the
projected cancers were due to scans performed at
the ages of 35 to 54 years compared with 15% due
to scans performed at ages younger than 18 years, and
66% were in females”.[13]
Processed foods lacking the good energy
and information necessary to repair the DNA damage
caused by radiation, (which is totally dependent on our
genetic susceptibility-remember epigenetics?)[18]
stress and toxins in the environment set the stage for
cancer to develop. It doesn’t help that commercially
prepared foods misrepresent the contents of their meals;
fast food restaurants list calories 18% lower than real
content.[14] They probably cheat on the nutritional
content, too.
Coping
with cancer risks
Radiation,
processed foods lacking good energy and information,
stress and toxins in the environment trigger DNA
mutations that set the stage for cancer to develop. It
doesn’t help that commercially prepared foods
misrepresent the contents of their meals; fast food
restaurants list calories 18% lower than real
content.[15] They probably cheat on the nutritional
content, too.
As we have
already documented, we can prevent 2/3 of cancers just
by eating better diets.[16] But, we also need to
maximize the role of our gut in metabolizing the food we
eat. After all, 60% of the immune system is found there,
and that is where we detoxify. It sounds too simple,
doesn’t? But, the Occam’s razor principle dictates that
it be so. It boils down to avoiding toxins, maximizing
the role of bacteria in the gut,[17] and nourishing
relationships; this is how we may even negate the role
of genetics in cancer.
I wish you
better books, better diets and better relationships for
2010.
[1] From the book of the month, “The Dante Club”
by Matthew Pearl.
[2] “Ranking 37th: measuring the performance o
the U.S. health care system”,
New
England J. of Medicine 2010;362:98
[3] “Are We Losing Touch in Medicine?”Utah
Medical Association bulletin, November 2005
[4] “The Medical Humanities, for Lack of a Better
Term,” New England J. of Medicine 2005;353:1009
[5] Chung Shan Medical University, China. Salt Lake
Tribune, January 15th 2010
[6] J. Lancet 2006;367:618
[7] Book “Murder by Infection,” by Mullins;
page 351
[8] American Institute for Cancer Research, November
6th 2009
[9] “Cancer Stem Cell Tumor Model Reveals
Invasive Morphology and Increased Phenotypical
Heterogeneity”,
J.
Cancer Research 2010;70: 46-56.
[10] “Price Hikes Probed”, JAMA 2010;303:125
[11] J. Radiology 2004;232:735
[12] “Cancer Risks and Radiation Exposure From
Computed Tomographic Scans: How Can We Be Sure That
the
Benefits Outweigh the Risks?” J. Archives
of Internal Medicine 2009;169:2049
[13] “Projected Cancer Risks From Computed
Tomographic Scans Performed in the United States in 2007”,
J. Archives of Internal Medicine
2009;169(22):2071
[14] “The
Accuracy of Stated Energy Contents of Reduced-Energy,
Commercially Prepared Foods”,
Journal of the
American Dietetic Association 2010;110:116
[15] “The
Accuracy of Stated Energy Contents of Reduced-Energy,
Commercially Prepared Foods”,
Journal of the
American Dietetic Association 2010;110:116
[16] “Apoptosis by Dietary Factors,” J.
Carcinogenesis 2007;28:233
[17] J. Gut 2010;59:88
[18] J.
of the American College of Radiology February 2010
