Random? Half Cancers Preventable

Some people think we live in a random universe, nothing but probability--a chance for this, and a chance for that. Some also think that health is random. Some people get sick, others do not. A roll of the dice for the most part. In fact, that's what insurance is for: you purchase insurance hoping that you won't get sick, but if by chance you do...

This approach to health, however, is foolish. We know that health and wellness are not random. What we do regularly determines whether we will experience health or not. It certainly is about probability when it comes to our health. The more we engage in healthy behaviors, the greater the probability we will remain healthy; and the more we  engage in unhealthy behaviors, the greater the probability we will develop illness or disease. True, it's never one hundred percent, as Jim Fixx showed that any fitness enthusiast can drop dead from a heart attack, while George Burns smoked cigars into his 100s. Go figure.

But what we do is still the most important determinant of health. Take a recent study that now shows 50% of all cancers are preventable. That's right folks! And the big C is the second leading cause of death following another preventable condition...you got it--heart disease.

The numbers one and two killers in the U.S. are preventable. Smoking is blamed for 33% of all cancers, while 75% of lung cancers are due to smoking. Shoot, I used to smoke, I get it. I liked smoking, heck yeah...but I quit. Simple as that. My cancer risk went way down. Probabilities.

Here's another: Obesity is responsible for 20% of all cancers in the U.S. Throw in booze, pollution, poor diet, prescription drugs by the pounds... Why, heck...of course cancer is the number two killer--people are poisoning themselves.

And the political perspective is that these people just don't have enough resources. State smoking cessation programs are being financially undercut, and people don't have money, or the insurance, to be treated once they get sick. Random.

But by quitting smoking, eating well, minimizing junk food (like sodas), and exercising regularly actually helps lessen the risk of heart disease and cancer. Not random.

Duh.

Low Cholesterol's Cancer Link Illustrates Innate Intelligence

Oh boy, here we go...so you know that I'm not shy about discussing my health. I've got nothing to hide, and I approach my health from a very proactive position. I also have a belief system that is integral to how I care for my health--I know that one day I am going to die, could be tomorrow, but for me to experience my life to the fullest today, I am quite certain that it requires me to care for my body as one of my most valuable assets. So I don't obsess about "never getting sick," I just treat my body like I love it, and I trust that it knows--through its innate intelligence--how to run my body, provided I treat it in the right ways. Simple.

So long-time readers of this blog will recall that I have high cholesterol. Have I ever been worried about it? No, never. Not even a little. In fact, I just had my annual physical in February. Once again, stellar health, thank you, thank you...athlete's numbers...'cept I have high cholesterol.

If you've been following my story, you'll recall that my doc (love him, bless his heart...and I mean that sincerely; he is the greatest) has, of course, recommended I go on statins. Now I've got my inner theories about it, regarding liability and stuff like that, but whatever...he knows I'm not going to take them. It's simple: my HDL levels ("good" cholesterol) are above and beyond excellent. My total cholesterol to HDL ratio is at the "optimum" level. Ha ha ha...I'm in the absolute lowest risk category for heart disease: I'm not taking statins!

And my doctor knows this. I saw the perplexed look on his face when I pointed out those values to him (I guess that's not the typical presentation of his high cholesterol patients). Shrugging it off, he still recommended the statins (and has every year for the last four). Sigh...

Okay, here's the point of this piece: A recent study has shown that low levels of LDL ("bad") cholesterol, in the absence of cholesterol lowering medications, has a strong link to cancer. What?! That's right, and although we've known of this link for a long time (30+ years), this study was the first ever look at the low LDL-cancer link over an extended period of time (~19 years), and only in patients with no history of taking cholesterol-lowering drugs.

The results showed a couple things. One, the link cannot be due to taking statins since all subjects were statin-free throughout the study, and two, low cholesterol cannot be a byproduct of the cancer itself, since low LDL levels were observed well before any preclinical signs of cancer were present. In other words, statins don't cause cancer, and cancer doesn't cause low cholesterol. That we know.

What we don't know is what the connection is. Hmmm.... Well let me give it a try: I believe that the body has an internal wisdom, an Innate Intelligence, that directs its operation. I believe this system is flawless. The body knows what to do at all times, and provided with the right fuel (whole, natural foods), necessary movement, proper bodywork and tension relief, adequate rest, adequate hydration, full, deep abdominal breath and minimal toxins, it will continue to operate flawlessly until it expires (which it will also do flawlessly).

However, too many people do not observe the natural laws of health--they eat poorly, fail to exercise regularly, ignore bodywork until they are in so much pain they can't stand it, get little rest, drink too many sodas and not enough water, breathe shallowly from their chest, and take multiple drugs and other toxins, and so, yeah...their Innate Intelligence get severely challenged and fatigued; or it can only do the minimum with the resources it is given and becomes overloaded.

Further, we have a medical science that believes its own limited observations are the whole to the puzzle, and it make erroneous conclusions based on this small, piece-wise information, and yet it still believes it knows how to run the body better than Mother Nature does. And then we find out later that there is, in fact, more to the puzzle. You don't say...?

But taking all the above points into consideration: Somehow, when LDL cholesterol is disrupted from one of its many functions--that is, when it's in too low of concentration--leads to cell overgrowth, or cancer. Thus, not that statins, by lowering cholesterol, will cause cancer, but instead, perhaps this medical campaign to reduce cholesterol at all costs is an erroneous one. Perhaps the body produces what it needs (cholesterol can be both endogenous [created within] and exogenous [recieved from without]), and putting everybody on statins, particularly those with stellar numbers in all other health measurements, is just plain foolish.

No medical doctor or pharmaceutical researcher will ever know human physiology better than the human body does. Why the arrogant medical scientific (?) machine believes that it understands what cholesterol levels should be better than the body does is completely perplexing to me. If we were simply talking about a few hundred thousand people on statins because they have super-dangerously high levels that puts them at severe risk of heart disease, then...okay, I would understand. But to have tens of millions of Americans on these useless and dangerous cholesterol lowering drugs is purely idiotic.

So once again I have to believe it all comes down to three things--money (pharmaceuticals), liability (doctors protecting their asses) and job protection (medical professionals making sure they do not become obsolete). That's the reality behind the cholesterol-statin push in the western world. I'm sure that's why my doctor recommends statins to me despite my excellent health, I'm sure it's why statins are called "the best selling drugs of all time," and I'm sure it will continue until the next blockbuster drug addressing normal physiology comes along to take it's place. Shouldn't be too far off--stay tuned.

Sleeping Pills: They're Killers

Bad news for seekers of sleep-help: Sleeping pills increase the risk of death, and the risk of developing cancer. A new study discloses that regular users of sleeping pills are four more times likely to die than people who don't take them, not a good thing considering 5-10% of the U.S. adult population is said to be taking pharmaceutical sleep aids.

Sleeping pills that were linked to these risks included benzodiazepines such as temazepam or Xanax; non-benzodiazepines such as Ambien (zolpidem), Lunesta (eszopiclone) and Sonata (zaleplon); barbiturates; and sedative antihistamines. 

According to the study, which looked at over 10,500 people, people who were prescribed up to 18 doses of sleeping pills a year were 3.6 times more likely to die than their counterparts who were prescribed none. And those prescribed between 18-132 doses were more than four times as likely to die. People  taking more than 132 doses a year had five times the risk of dying compared to those prescribed none. This was true regardless of age, but risks were highest among those individuals aged 18 to 55. Dang!

To add insult to injury, those people taking the highest doses of sleeping pills had the highest risk of developing cancers, including those of the esophagus, white blood cells, lung, colon and prostate. Although many potential explanations exist for the increases in cancers, preexisting health conditions was not one of them, leading one to conclude that the association to sleeping pills is meaningful.

Saying that, causation was not found in this study, only that there was an association between taking sleeping pills and increased cancers and death. In other words, it is not definite that the cancers and deaths were caused by the sleeping pills themselves. Equally likely is that people on the verge of either illness or death might have a disrupted enough sleep to warrant help. In fact, sleep problems are often the first to appear in medical or psychological conditions.

Dr. Daniel Kripke of the Scripps Clinic Viterbi Family Sleep Center, in La Jolla, CA and lead author of the study feels pretty strongly about the results, "For the particular sleeping pills studied, I do not see any time I would prescribe them."

Other doctors disagree. For example, one Dr. Victor Fornari, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Zucker Hillside Hospital of the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System in Manhasset, N.Y. says,

"These are safe and effective medications when prescribed by a physician as part of a comprehensive treatment plan. Don't stop taking these medications if you feel that you need them and are taking them with a doctor's prescription, but be mindful that they shouldn't be taken frivolously and there are alternatives such as avoiding napping, getting proper exercise, eliminating caffeine and doing other the kinds of things that improve sleep hygiene." 

Good points and good advice from both doctors. Here's the bottom line: Sleeping pills, like all drugs, have their usefulness. Chronic use, however, is a problem. If you need sleep aids to fall asleep most nights, then something else is going on. And let's not forget how habit forming these drugs can be--the more you take, the more you gotta take, an so on.

If you are having problems sleeping, do what the good doctor Forni suggests: exercise, eat well, reduce caffeine, avoid naps...but most importantly, keep a rhythm. Nothing in my books leads to sleep disorders faster than an erratic sleep schedule. Do yourself a favor, focus on good sleep patterns and get the rest you need for healthy mind and body. And stay away from the sleeping pills--they're killers.

Silicon Breast Implant Scare in Europe and So. America (Part 2)

See Part One here.

PIP was placed into liquidation in March 2010 with losses of 9 million euros after the French medical safety agency recalled its implants. In a subsequent inspection of its manufacturing site, officials found it was using industrial silicone not approved by health authorities, and only about a tenth as expensive as approved gel.

An investigation found a majority of implants made by PIP since 2001 contained the unapproved gel. Industrial silicone is used in a range of products from computers to cookware.

While all breast implants can burst, especially as they get older, "these implants have a particular fragility" and appear to pose risks of rupture earlier in their life spans than other implants, said Jean-Claude Ghislain of the French health agency AFSSAPS. France's state health care system normally pays for implants for medical reasons, such as after a mastectomy, but not for cosmetic implants. About 80% of those with the PIP implants had them for aesthetic reasons.

A PIP lawyer says the company recognizes that its products were defective but argues that it is being unduly singled out.

"The implants had flaws but the PIP implants are not the only ones on the market that had problems," said lawyer Yves Haddad. "The reality is that everyone who makes implants has a percentage of failures."

According to him, company founder Mas is in France but does not intend to make public comment.

What can I say? Shocking is all that comes to mind. My heartfelt sympathies go to the women affected by this shameful act. Hopefully, everything will be sorted out quickly and decisively; but most importantly, may all the women involved get resolve with the most minimal consequences.

*Most of this piece consists of excerpts coming from various sources including Reuters, Associated Press, BBC and ChannelNewsAsia

Silicon Breast Implant Scare in Europe and So. America (Part 1)

Jean-Claude Mas

Hold onto your hats with this one, folks--it doesn't look pretty. The chief executive of a French company whose questionable breast implants are under international scrutiny is on the Interpol police agency's most-wanted list.

According to recent reports Jean-Claude Mas is wanted by Costa Rican authorities for crimes involving "life and health." It bears a photo of the 72-year-old Mas but does not elaborate on his alleged crimes or link to Costa Rica.

France's health ministry Friday advised 30,000 women with breast implants (silicone) made by the now-bankrupt Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) to have them removed, saying that while there is no proven cancer risk, they could rupture.

Tens of thousands of women in over 65 countries around the world have the same implants, made from industrial rather than medical quality silicone, although some reports have the number as high as 300,000 worldwide. Most of them live in South America and western Europe.

250 British women are suing for compensation after being fitted with the suspect breast implants. Some 42,000 women in Britain are thought to have the implants, according to a government watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The silicone gel implants, made by PIP, appear to have an unusually high rupture rate and fears about possible health risks are spreading.

French and British authorities appear to be taking very different approaches to the potential dangers. France has take the costly (euro60 million or $78 million) and unprecedented steps of offering to pay for the 30,000 women to have their implants removed.

In Britain, Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies said:

"Women with PIP implants should not be unduly worried. We have no evidence of a link to cancer or an increased risk of rupture. If women are concerned they should speak to their surgeon." 

According to Davies, removing implants "carries risks in itself."  She does say, however, that women with these implants should be checked by their surgeons. 

MHRA in Britain says that France has reported rupture rates of around 5% for PIP implants, compared with 1% in the UK. Eight cases of cancer have been reported in women with the implants but the French authorities say these are not necessarily linked to faulty implants.

French  Health Minister Xavier Bertrand urged French women to have the implants removed as a "preventive measure," but said that it was not "urgent." The French Government did not move quickly enough for thousands of French women that marched on Paris to demand more attention to worries about what might be happening inside them. Images of leaky, blubbery implants and women having mammograms have been splashed on French TV. 

The implants were exported from France to Latin American countries such as Brazil and Argentina, and Western European markets including Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy. Local investigative police in Costa Rica said a man identified as Jean Claude Mas Florent was arrested by national police in Costa Rica's Cartago province on June 1, 2010 for reckless driving under the influence of alcohol, a crime that can carry a jail sentence. He was given a court date in November 2010 but fled the country. It was unclear if there was any link between that arrest and the Interpol notice.

Concerns in France first surfaced about two years ago when surgeons started reporting abnormally high rupture rates, leading to a flood of legal complaints, the company's bankruptcy and a scandal that has spread across the world.  

In the U.S., concerns about silicone gel implants in general led to a 14-year ban on their use, in favor of saline-filled implants. Silicone implants were brought back to the market in the U.S. in 2006 after research ruled out links to cancer, lupus and some other concerns.

Australia's healthcare watchdog says about 8,900 of the implants were used in women there, some of whom had complained about splitting and leaking.

Germany's medical safety board advised women with PIP implants to consult their doctors for checks, but stopped short of recommending their removal.

Go to part two here.

Irresponsible Drug Use the Common Theme

I was asked to say a few words about drug use, but not in the positive. Well darn-it, how could I resist? I'm guessing the request comes on the heels of my most recent posts on medical marijuana, of which I make no secret that I am in favor. But I wish to be very clear that my views on medical marijuana are not a condonation of recreational or irresponsible drug use. On the contrary, it's precisely because I am so against the irresponsible and dangerous use of drugs that I advocate medical marijuana. When compared to the heavy-duty narcotics and other pain pills that are doled-out indiscriminately by doctors, believe me, medical marijuana is a blessing.

First and foremost, I am a former drug abuser, so I full well know what it means to be addicted. And I also know the down-side to heavy and/or long-term drug use. I have done it all, you name it, but alcohol and narcotics were my main weakness. I was also addicted to nicotine. For twenty years I smoked a pack a day.

My experience with drugs and alcohol were not all bad, though--I certainly learned a lot. If nothing else I came to understand how drugs can consume your life, how they can distort your view of the world, and how they could damage relationships. I got to experience how they could kill your motivation and prevent you from achieving your full potential. I was also exposed to a dangerous, seedy side of life that was full of mistrust, deceit, theft and violence, not to mention legal ramifications that could end a life of freedom by landing you behind bars for a long time. Yeah, lots of disadvantages to drugs; but for me it was a valuable education that will probably serve me, and hopefully others, for the rest of my life.

Despite medical marijuana being classified a schedule 1 controlled substance--high potential for abuse, lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision, and no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States (not entirely true, but that's the definition)--it does have definite benefits. In my lifetime, I have seen it help HIV+ men keep from wasting away by giving them an appetite when they had none. I have seen it help cancer patients. One elderly couple, who are in their 90s, and whom I treat chiropractically, have shared their stories with me about the unrelenting pain they feel on a daily basis due to the cancer they each have; and how not even the Fentanyl* patches their doctors put them on would not bring relief. Only medical marijuana did that. That's right--these people, in their 90s, could only find relief from the intense pain they felt 24/7 by smoking a joint. They were not hippies; they had never had marijuana in their lives until they were sick with cancer. And it helped them. Duh!

Listen, drugs in and of themselves are not bad. They are helpful, even necessary, in many instances. I've needed the help of pain killers. An attack of acute appendicitis in 2006 showed me just how useful morphine could be (although not 100% effective, and highly addictive). Whether antibiotics, sedatives, pain meds or steroids, each have a short-term use; but too many doctors give them to people long-term, as an easy yet temporary fix, instead of looking for real, long-term and self-directed solutions.  And it's this that leads to serious problems.


Let me ask you a question. What do the following people have in common:

• Jimi Hendrix, John Belushi, Sid Vicious, River Phoenix and DJ AM?

They all overdosed on recreational drugs.

And how about these people:

• Elvis Presley, Keith Moon, Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson?

They all overdosed on doctor prescribed drugs.

In both groups the common theme was an irresponsible use of the drugs. So regardless of whether a drug is illicit or legal, using it carelessly is foolish, and it can lead to illness or death.

That doesn't mean drugs are bad by any means. Worshiping and relying on drugs, however, is unwise. And that goes for medical marijuana too. But if a substance can help cancer patients, people with HIV and people that suffer from chronic pain, find relief, and maybe even help them survive (by increasing appetite), and that substance has low-risk side effects when compared to harder drugs like narcotics, then shouldn't we use them? Shouldn't we at least study them to see what medicinal benefits they might contain and do our best to understand them?

That's not me condoning drug use. I have lived both a life of drugs and a drug-free one--and I can say without a doubt that I prefer being straight, sharp and of clear mind. But I don't knock recreational drug use, either, if the user can do so responsibly. However, rehab centers and city morgues are filled with people who couldn't, and frankly, that could be you one day.  So if you value your life, it's better to stay clean.

That, however, is the farthest I will go with wagging a finger at society, because I know we can't both live in a culture where taking prescription drugs is considered 'normal', and expect others to not do so recreationally. That would be a fantasy.

*Fentanyl is a schedule 2 controlled substance--high potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use in treatment in U.S., and currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence (not true of marijuana).  Medical cannabis (currently a schedule 1--see above) would be more appropriately placed in this category, and probably most appropriately as a schedule 3.

My Airport X-ray Experience

It was just a matter of time before it would be necessary for me to make a Gargantuan decision--airport x-ray or pat-down.  What to do, what to do?  (sweat, sweat, sweat).

Uh...can I get the pat-down instead?

You mean opt-out?

Yeah, opt-out.

TSA person 1: We got an opt-out here?  TSA person 2: Opt-out!  TSA person 3: Opt-out?  TSA person 4: We got an opt-out!  (Sirens blaring)

I guess the airport security would rather not have to actually do a pat-down, as it took a full 10-minutes (no exaggeration) to get the frisker to come a-friskin'.

So I was a bit surprised by the lack of people requesting a pat-down.  I was the only one!  The airport (LAX) was particularly packed that afternoon, and everyone was walking through the radiation machines.  Hmmm...

I've heard lots of talk amongst my chiropractic clients and on news shows that people were going to refuse the scanner...but not that afternoon.  And I was again the only one to opt-out on my return from Houston's Bush International airport.  Now the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) reports that most Americans prefer the scanners to a pat-down.  What the heck???

Are people really that trusting of the government?  I'm no conspiracy theorist, but why would anybody want more radiation than they already get from the dentist and doctors?  Duh!  Perhaps people don't understand that x-ray can lead to cancer.  Did you ever wonder why they place lead shields on you when you get an x-ray?  Frickin' duh!  And we don't know if cumulative exposure increases risk.  If it does, then every time you travel by air should put you at greater risk.  Even worse is that studies have shown that men exposed to x-rays close to fertilization fathered children with heightened risk of developing leukemia.  Still OK with it?  Hey, it's your life.

With the pat-down, it was no different than a typical police search (not that I know anything about that!!!)  Once my down-patter finally showed up (apologetic, of course), it was quick and painless.  He asked if I was worried about the excess radiation.  I said yes.  He said he understood--he was worried about his children getting brain cancer from cellphones.  I told him he could probably stop worrying.

So, overall, I found the pat-down pretty simple.  In a way I'm glad there weren't many people waiting to get pat-down--it would have made my wait that much longer.  But do I get it?  Not really--but like I said...it's your life.

An Apple A Month Ain't Cutting It

Bad, bad, bad adults.  You haven't been eating your veggies.  How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your beets?

A new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report shows that most Americans are still not eating vegetables, and fruit consumption has dipped a bit, too.  According to the report taken from a telephone survey of hundreds of thousands of Americans, only one-third of U.S. adults consumed fruit or fruit juice at least twice a day. That's down slightly from more than 34% in 2000.

And vegetable consumption is at 26%, right where it sat in 2000.  Doh!  Not good, people.  And we wonder why cancer rates continue to soar. 

Although the survey did not say which fruits and vegetables were being consumed by Americans, a CDC study last year showed that orange juice was top source of fruit for most U.S. adults, while potatoes were the most consumed vegetable.  Oh God bless the french fry...

Some other interesting facts:

• California was the fruitiest, having the highest consumption of fruits
• Tennessee had the highest vegetable consumption
• Oklahoma ate the least fruit
• South Dakota was last in eating vegetable

I know lots of clients in my Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood chiropractic clinic are taking various supplements that have high-concentrations of ground fruits and vegetables in them, particularly berries and other fruits high in antioxidants.  Uh, sorry folks...vitamins don't replace food.  And I know others that swear by exotic fruit drinks.  That's fine, but for the price of one bottle you can probably stock up on fresh produce for the week.

Look, it ain't rocket science.  You've got to eat fresh fruits and vegetables to maintain good health and prevent degenerative diseases like heart disease and cancer.  When I say this to people they always shake their heads in complete agreement because, well, everybody knows that.  But these numbers show that many of the head shakers aren't walkin' their shake.  OK, you know...so how 'bout steppin' it up?  It's for your health.

Vitamins Do the Trick?

When it comes to preventing cancer, are nutritional supplements effective?  Some say yes, some say no.  There is, however, a superior way to prevent cancer nutritionally--by eating healthy foods.  You don't say?  Yes, nothing beats whole natural foods when it comes to dietary health.

Recent studies have shown that neither vitamins C nor E did the trick in preventing cancer or heart disease when taken as supplements.  However, we know how important these vitamins are for proper function.  So what's the deal?  Well, as I point out in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, there is no substitute for real food.  C'mon folks, we haven't found the magic pill yet that can replace food in providing either energy or nutrients (necessary as co-factors in metabolic processes).

Saying that, though, I am not yet convinced that nutritional supplements are useless.  In the big Women's Health Study and the Physicians' Health Study II, which provided the most damning case against supplements, one must admit the doses for vitamin C, at least, were very low (500 mg).  I personally take 2000 mg per day.  I will contend that 500 mg, while not useless, is probably too low to show such dramatic effects as preventing cancer or heart disease.

Remove vitamin C from the diet, though, and watch your health deteriorate.  Hmm, so what then?  Vitamin C is necessary but only valuable when coming from real food?  I don't think so.  We must remember that supplements are just that--supplementing the diet.  Like exercise alone not guaranteeing good health, when combined with diet, rest, chiropractic care, sufficient water intake, and so on, you better believe it will increase your chances of experiencing optimal health.

So preventing cancer, I am certain, requires more than just supplementing.  True, studying each individual vitamin and minerals' individual effects on the body is valuable.  But I think before we throw the baby out with the bath water, we might need to design more rigorous studies to learn the whole truth.

I am a firm believer in the healing and preventative power whole natural foods.  But I know that we need vital nutrients.  It can't be possible that supplementing with compounds containing the same molecules as natural foods is folly.  Unless there are synergistic reactions that occur with other, as of yet, undiscovered agents...well, it just doesn't make sense.  We know certain things about antioxidants in general, and the vitamins that fill that role specifically, so I'm thinking better studies are needed.

But forget not the principle--without healthy, whole natural foods as a staple in your diet, you won't be preventing cancer or general malnutrition by simply swallowing a pill.

Final Choices

One more thing regarding my last post: When it comes to making the decision of whether to die in comfort and dignity, or whether to be treated with chemotherapy or radiation during the last days of your life, consider these side effects:





Chemotherapy:

• Fatigue
• Nausea & Vomiting
• Pain
• Hair Loss
• Anemia
• Infection
• Blood Clotting Problems
• Mouth, Gum and Throat Problems
• Diarrhea and Constipation
• Nerve and Muscle Effects
• Effects on Skin and Nails
• Kidney and Bladder Effects
• Flu-Like Symptoms
• Fluid Retention
• Effects on Sexual Organs and Sexuality

Radiation Therapy:

• Tiredness
• Skin reactions (such as a rash or redness, permanent pigmentation, and scarring) in the treated area
• Loss of appetite
• Inflammation of tissues and organs in and around the body site radiated, which can cause burn or permanent pigmentation
• Decrease in white blood cells--cells that help protect the body against infection

When put in these terms, I can't think of any person that would choose this over going peacefully.

Love and Honor in Death

Ready for some controversy?  Here goes: Our illusion that death is "bad" is costing us oodles in unnecessary health care, prolonging pain and suffering, and preventing people from finding beauty in their inevitable transformation.  According to a recent report, more and more Americans are being treated to death--that is, receiving costly and often ineffective care, instead of choosing to die in dignity and comfort.

More than 80% of all deaths in the U.S. are due to chronic and progressive illnesses such as cancer and heart failure.  Of these, more than 80% say they would like to avoid hospitalization and intensive care at the end of their lives; yet in actuality, Americans are being treated aggressively until their last dying breath.  Here are the numbers:

• The average time spent in hospice and palliative care (focused on comfort without curing) is decreasing.  In 2008, one third of people receiving hospice care had it for one week or less.
• Hospitalizations during the last six months of life are rising: from 1,302 per 1,000 Medicare recipients in 1996 to 1,441 in 2005, Dartmouth reports.
• 12% of cancer patients who died in 1999 received chemo in the last two weeks of life, up from nearly 10 percent in 1993. 
• Almost 20% of patients with colorectal cancer that has spread are on at least their fourth chemotherapy drug. The same goes for roughly 12% of patients with metastatic breast cancer, and for 12% of those with lung cancer. The analysis is based on more than 60,000 cancer patients. 

These numbers are particularly concerning since treating chronic illness in the last two years of life eats up nearly one-third of all Medicare dollars.

This controversy lies in that some people believe we should try to extend life under all circumstances.  As long as an inkling of hope remains, some say, people should fight on.  And the controversy is as much political as it is moral.  During the debates over universal health coverage (Obamacare), opponents stressed that health care rationing would take place, and that "death panels" would be responsible for determining who received further care and who was left to die.

Although I find this notion and fear of death panels ridiculous, I do think that our obsession with life at all costs dishonors the magnificence of the human life cycle.  We are born, we live, we die.  It has been said that the only thing certain in life is death, and in that we are all the same.  Not one person walking the planet today will be alive in 150 years.  In fact, neither will our planet live forever, nor our sun--all things move on to the next transformation. 

Does this mean people should not fight for their lives?  Well, it depends.  To a 92-year-old, I'd say, "For what?"  However, to a 22-year-old diagnosed with lung cancer, I'd say yes...with a catch.  If you have an inspired purpose, something driving you to live, I believe you can beat the odds.  But the purpose must be a part of your essence, a drive so strong that not even the sands of time can keep you from completing it.  It cannot be some fabricated deal you try to cut with your maker in an attempt to hold on; it must be in your heart, truly a part of you.  Even then you won't escape death for long.  Death is inevitable for all of us--something for the young and healthy to think about regarding their own life's purpose, and acting on your dreams...now!

No, I don't know for sure if having deep inspirational purpose will extend your life, but my intuition tells me it is so.  I think about some of the lives we have had the honor of observing, like Michael Jackson's or Tupac Shakur's, believing that some people know when they are not long for this earth.  When we observe how some people work long and hard at the ends of their lives to complete "unfinished business," it humbles you to the magnificence of living on purpose.

As far as dying is concerned, it is true that we all have opinions on how we will handle the inevitable, until it is our time to go.  Our survival instinct--the one hard-wired into all living things--makes it very challenging to accept death as we imagine within our philosophical belief system, but we can all ultimately appreciate that transformation is all there is; and one day everyone of us will move on to the next experience.  We can fear it, or we can see the beauty in the transition and be grateful.  Death is the completion of one cycle, and the beginning of a new one.

*This post is dedicated to my role model and inspiration, Nate Pressman, a lover of life and God.  You are dignified and beautiful in all your forms, Grandpa; and you will be with us, around us, always.  We love you.

CAT Scan Fever

To radiate or not to radiate, that should be the question all doctors ask continuously.  Unfortunately, the explosion of higher-sensitivity diagnostic imaging has some patients asking for them by name, a dangerous scenario as CT (CAT) scans are being implicated in increased cancer risk.

I have had my Los Angeles chiropractic patients ask me (more like passively demand) for an advanced imaging study, despite it being unnecessary.  Why?  Because doctors have been pushing them in the same manner they've been pushing antidepressants, statins and other drugs.  When doctors order CT scans and MRIs for every patient coming in with an ache or pain, regardless of how small, the public will start to think advanced imaging is a medical necessity.  Often it isn't.  Here's the skinny:

An article just published in the New England Journal of Medicine, discloses that X-ray computed tomography (CT) is being overused by doctors, and this overuse is leading to increased medical mistakes as well as increased cancer risk.  CT scans generate three-dimensional images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation.  CT scans use far more radiation than traditional x-rays, and their use has increased dramatically over the last two decades--for example, approximately 72 million scans were performed in the United States in 2007.  According to the report, 10% of the U.S. population gets CT scans every year, and that number is growing by more than 10% every year.

Increased CT scans is a concern not only because of the heightened cancer risk, but also because one of the main groups getting this type of mega-radiation is children.  The lifetime cancer risk for children receiving CT scans in non-negligible.  To put this into perspective:

In the United States, of approximately 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually performed in children under the age of 15 years, a rough estimate is that 500 of these individuals might ultimately die from cancer attributable to the CT radiation. (via Wikipedia)

The good news is that the FDA and Congress are considering measures to prevent medical mistakes.  However, discretionary use is still in the hands of doctors, and I imagine the overuse of CT scans will continue as long as the fear of liability continues to loom over doctors' heads. 

Although MRIs use no radiation, their overuse is also epidemic.  I am of the opinion that this is one reason medical costs are out of control.  You can give every American double the health coverage, if doctors don't stop using these imaging techniques indiscriminately, costs will continue to soar.

The way I handle unnecessary MRI requests is to explain that diagnostics should guide treatment.  For the most part, if knowing whether a spinal disk bulge is present radiologically will not change my treatment protocol (and it rarely does), then the study is unnecessary.  I simply remind the patient that MRIs are not cheap--they run around a couple thousand dollars--and even with the best insurance, the patient is responsible for the co-payment, which will be several hundred dollars.

You still want it, even though it's not going to change anything we do here?

Yes. 

Be my guest.  Here's your scrip.  Have fun.

Some people just can't be convinced; but I'm hoping the fear of developing cancer from unnecessary CT scans wises people up.  We'll see.

There's Always Sumptin'

No free ride--dang!  There never seems to be something for nothing.  Always a cost, always a price.  Anyway, now it looks like a popular blood pressure medication may raise cancer risk.  You mean I can't eat what I want, neglect exercise, or indulge in type-A behavior at any time I want, and then just take a magic little pill that'll make everything all right?  Whuh?

According to a recent analysis of five previous studies following about 60,000 patients, researchers found a link between taking angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer.  ARBs are taken by millions of people worldwide for conditions like high blood pressure, heart problems and diabetic kidney disease.  Researchers found that people taking these meds had a one percent higher risk of developing a whole range of cancers, including prostate, breast and a noticeable spike in lung cancer.  About 85 percent of the people in the studies were on telmisartan, sold as Micardis, made by Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.

Although the individual risk is modest, the wide numbers of people taking these drugs means that the overall cancer numbers worldwide should increase due to ARB use.  It is unknown at this time if the cancer risk is reduced following discontinuation of the drugs.

Of course, Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., makers of the drug Micardis, dispute the results, claiming their hypertension drug is one of the most-studied in the world.  The company claimed in a statement that it had "internal safety data" contradicting the recent study. According to studies run by the pharmaceutical company, there was no link between increased cancer risk and Micardis.  Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Lead author of the study, Dr. Ilke Sipahi, warned patients not to stop taking their drugs, and recommended they consult their doctor if they were concerned.  However, he does say that he now thinks twice before prescribing ARBs himself.  Nevertheless, for some people that can't handle the side-effects of some of the other hypertension drugs, the risk of dying of stroke or heart disease far outweigh those of developing cancer.

Well, let me interject my two-cents.  Hypertension comes in two flavors, primary and secondary, the former being due mostly to lifestyle behaviors, the latter secondary to other causes, many hormonal.  85 percent of people with high blood pressure have the primary type.  I hope you see where I'm going.  If you handle your own lifestyle modification, take things into your own hands, why...you could lower your blood pressure and avoid the increased risk of developing cancer by using and ARB, like Micardis.  Go figure.

Here are a few simple tips to lowering blood pressure:

• Get adjusted--studies have shown chiropractic care can reduce blood pressure by 17mmHg systolic and 10mmHg diastolic*
• Lose weight--obesity increases blood pressure; the heart has to work harder to pump through the fat
• Reduce sugar intake--yeah, I know it's hard, I live it every day; so what, do it anyway; sugar is a killer
• Reduce salt intake--this decreases blood pressure in about 33% of people
• Quit smoking and reduce or quit drinking alcohol--I know, I know, but just so you know, both increase blood pressure immediately
• Learn to handle your stress--stress is a necessary part of life; however, putting things into balanced perspective is essential (don't know how? contact me)

Blood pressure medications are supposed to be prescribed after lifestyle changes have been modified.  But you know as well as I do that, like pretty much all medications in our arsenal, they are prescribed first and immediately, with lifestyle behaviors touched only obligatorily with the five second, "Oh, and you should probably lose weight and quit smoking," line your doctor says as he hands you your scrip and walks out the door.

Listen, don't rely solely on your doctors.  They are overworked, and they know that most people won't comply with suggestions on lifestyle changes (although this is not entirely true, it is a belief of the average medical doctor).  Be good to yourself, take your health into your own hands.  The results are yours and yours alone.  Trust me, there's never something for nothing.  Nobody can do your exercises for you, and there is no such thing as a magic bullet.  Don't worry, it'll be worth all the hard work.

*Thank you Dr. Tim Swift, best chiropractor in San Clemente, for the reminder of my obvious oversight.

The Pain Is the Healing

Here is an affirmation I have given to a new client who is being treated with chemotherapy for cancer:  The pain IS the healing.

I was thinking very deeply about this client, who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma late last year, when I came up with the affirmation.  He is being successfully treated with the chemo, but the it has put him in excruciating pain.  He says it feels as if his bone marrow is boiling.

What we don't always realize is that life is often painful; but the pain we endure is often our greatest blessing; it's what usually brings our greatest growth.  That is the gist of this post.  And the gist of the affirmation.

Affirmations are statements that we say over and over to ourselves, to help establish in our minds the truth behind the statement.  What we say to ourselves repeatedly, we believe.  What we believe, we create.  In other words, we create our reality, whether you want to believe it or not (hidden wisdom, hidden wisdom, reread, ponder).

However, affirmations are powerless if we don't really believe what we are saying in the first place.  For my client, it is not too hard to get him to believe.  First off, he's super-sharp: He already sees the blessing in his illness, and he sees how his life (and mind-set) has led up to where he is now, for all of which he is grateful.  Second, he's a fighter; he feels like ess ayech aye tee (i.e. not well), yet he comes for his visits anyway.  He is doing everything he can to get well, including chiropractic, acupuncture, nutritional therapy, and very soon...rehab.  Third, he knows he is getting better; this man knows the principles of the universe, and he gets that he's getting a second chance; he understands the process.

So "the pain IS the healing" rings true for him.  But I have given him the affirmation to get him through the rough times.  When his bone marrow starts feeling like it's boiling from the chemo, the affirmation makes it firm in his mind that it is an integral part of the healing process; and he'll help his body along through his certainty.

And you can use this affirmation too.  Whether you are going through a tough breakup, financial or legal troubles, or any other painful experience, just remember...the pain IS the healing.

Yoga Helps Cancer Survivors

Doing yoga helps cancer patients overcome sleep problems.  So says a recent study to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to be held in Chicago this June.  According to the study, yoga also improved quality of life, reduced fatigue and reduced the need for sleep medications in cancer survivors.  Now how 'bout that?

The study looked at 410 patients who had finished treatment two to 24 months before and who had reported greater-than-average sleep disruptions (80% of cancer patients have trouble sleeping while undergoing treatment, and about two-thirds say the problems persist after treatment ends). Almost all of the participants were women, and three-quarters had had breast cancer, although the cancer had not spread. None had done any yoga in the past three months.  Participants were randomized to either receive regular follow-up care for cancer survivors or to receive regular care plus two 75-minute sessions of yoga per week for four weeks.

Emphasis was on doing postures (asanas) breathing from the diaphragm rather than the chest (pranayama) and on mindfulness, visualization and guided meditation.
Here are the results:

• 22% of yoga participants reported improvement in sleep quality, while only 12% of controls reported the same
• 31% of yoga participants who had started out with clinically impaired sleep quality recovered vs. only 16% of controls
• 42% in yoga group had reduced fatigue, compared to only 12% in the control group
• 20% of yoga participants had reduced daytime sleepiness, while only 5% of controls had the same 
• 6% on average in yoga group reported their quality of life improved, while none in the control group did
• While the yoga group was able to get by with less sleep medication, people in the control group actually used more.

Pretty amazing, but not surprising.  I know firsthand the multitude of health benefits of practicing yoga, as I have been involved in my own practice for 10 years.  What is remarkable is the degree and rapidity with which cancer survivors respond to yoga practice. 

The combined focus on physical activity, mental focus and breathing is a recipe to benefit all people.  Yoga has been around for thousands of years precisely because it has taught people a way of enhancing their life forces.  If yoga has the ability to transform the lives of cancer survivors, then it certainly has the ability to do the same for you and me.  I'm doing yoga daily; I encourage you to do the same.  Yoga will transform you.

Unhealthy Habits Age You by 12 Years

As important as practicing healthy habits is, discontinuing (or better yet never starting) poor health habits can add years to your life--twelve to be exact; this according to the findings of a recent study. Let's see, twelve years ago I was...DANG that's a long time! Check it:

The study tracked nearly 5,000 British adults for 20 years, and looked at the following four bad health habits:

• smoking
• drinking too much
• inactivity
• poor diet

Researchers found that people partaking in these habits had a substantially increased risk of death, and they seemed 12 years older than people in the healthiest group. Doh!

Of the research subjects having all four habits (314 people), 29% died through the study period. The subjects having none of the habits (394), only 8% had died. The people involved in the study were adults aged 18 and older, but 44 years old on average. The most common cause of death among subjects was heart disease and cancer, both caused by the unhealthy habits studied.

The healthiest group included never-smokers and those who had quit; teetotalers, women who had fewer than two drinks daily and men who had fewer than three; those who got at least two hours of physical activity weekly; and those who ate fruits and vegetables at least three times per day.

"You don't need to be extreme" to be in the healthy category, said lead researcher Elisabeth Kvaavik of the University of Oslo. "These behaviors add up, so together it's quite good. It should be possible for most people to manage to do it."

Tis true. It is one of the major premises in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health. Healthy habits are cumulative. Start slowly and add habits one by one. For example, start with bodywork, like chiropractic care, and get out of pain. Once pain starts to subside, start exercising. Cut out sodas next. Then start eating more fruits and vegetables, and so on. It doesn't have to all be done at once. Pick up a few healthy habits, then go for the more challenging ones, like quitting smoking or drinking or mainlining speed. Having a foundation of a handful of healthy habits will get you through a lot easier than trying to kick a habit cold turkey with nothing to fill the void.

By reducing faulty health habits you could add twelve years to your life--no small amount once you start getting up there. Add to that a few healthy habits and woo-boy you might even tack on another twelve. Think of that. What will you do with the time?