Brain Damaging Habits
1. No Breakfast
People who do not take breakfast are going to have a lower blood sugar level. This leads to an insufficient supply of nutrients to the brain causing brain degeneration.
2 . Overeating
It causes hardening of the brain arteries, leading to a decrease in mental power.
3. Smoking
It causes multiple brain shrinkage and may lead to Alzheimer disease.
4. High Sugar consumption
Too much sugar will interrupt the absorption of proteins and nutrients causing malnutrition and may interfere with brain development.
5. Air Pollution
The brain is the largest oxygen consumer in our 20 body. Inhaling polluted air decreases the supply of oxygen to the brain, bringing about a decrease in brain efficiency.
6 . Sleep Deprivation
Sleep allows our brain to rest.. Long term deprivation from sleep will accelerate the death of brain cells..
7. Head covered while sleeping
Sleeping with the head covered increases the concentration of carbon dioxide and decrease concentration of oxygen that may lead to brain damaging effects.
8. Working your brain during illness
Working hard or studying with sickness may lead to a decrease in effectiveness of the brain as well as damage the brain.
9. Lacking in stimulating thoughts
Thinking is the best way to train our brain, lacking in brain stimulation thoughts may cause brain shrinkage.
10. Talking Rarely
Intellectual conversations will promote the efficiency of the brain .
The main causes of liver damage are:
1. Sleeping too late and waking up too late are main cause.
2. Not urinating in the morning.
3. Too much eating.
4. Skipping breakfast.
5. Consuming too much medication.
6. Consuming too much preservatives, additives, food coloring, and artificial sweetener.
7. Consuming unhealthy cooking oil.
As much as possible reduce cooking oil use when frying, which includes even the best cooking oils like olive oil. Do not consume fried foods when you are tired, except if the body is20very fit.
8. Consuming raw (overly done) foods also add to the burden of liver.
Veggies should be eaten raw or cooked 3-5 parts. Fried veggies should be finished in one sitting, do not store.
We should prevent this without necessarily spending more. We just have to adopt a good daily lifestyle and eating habits. Maintaining good eating habits and time condition are very important for our bodies to absorb and get rid of unnecessary chemicals according to 'schedule.'
The top five cancer-causing foods are:
1.Hot Dogs
Because they are high in nitrates, the Cancer Prevention Coalition advises that children eat no more than 12 hot dogs a month. If you can't live without hot dogs, buy those made without sodium nitrate.
2. Processed meats and Bacon
Also high in the same sodium nitrates found in hot dogs, bacon, and other processed meats raise the risk of heart disease. The saturated fat in bacon also contributes to cancer.
3. Doughnuts
Doughnuts are cancer-causing double trouble. First, they are made with white flour, sugar, and hydrogenated oils, then fried at high temperatures. Doughnuts, says Adams , may be the worst food you can possibly eat to raise your risk of cancer.
4. French fries
Like doughnuts, French fries are made with hydrogenated oils and then fried at high temperatures. They also contain cancer- causing acryl amides which occur during the frying process. They should be called cancer fries, not French fries, said Adams .
5. Chips, crackers, and cookies
All are usually made with white flour and sugar. Even the ones whose labels claim to be free of trans-fats generally contain small amounts of trans-fats.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Know and aware of the difference
Please pass this on to family and friends. Especially people with children!
H1N1 flu is about to be upon us and we need to be on top of information regarding it. Here is a comparison to the
normal cold symptoms .
Know the Difference between a Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms
Symptom :
Cold(C).
H1N1 Flu(HNF)
1.Fever :
(C)Fever is rare with a cold.
(HNF)Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100°F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the H1N1flu.
2.Coughing:
(C) A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.
(HNF) A non-productive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the H1N1 flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough).
3.Aches :
(C)Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.
(HNF)Severe aches and pains are common with the H1N1 flu.
4.Stuffy Nose :
(C)Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.
(HNF)Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the H1N1 flu.
5.Chills :
(C)Chills are uncommon with a cold.
(HNF)60% of people who have the H1N1 flu experience chills.
6.Tiredness :
(C)Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.
(HNF)Tiredness is moderate to severe with the H1N1 flu.
7.Sneezing :
(C)Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.
(HNF)Sneezing is not common with the H1N1 flu.
8.Sudden Symptoms :
(C)Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.
(HNF)The H1N1 flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.
9.Headache:
(C)A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.
(HNF) A headache is very common with the H1N1 flu, present in 80% of flu cases.
10.Sore Throat:
(C) Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.
(HNF)Sore throat is not commonly present with the H1N1 flu.
11.Chest Discomfort :
(C)Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.
(HNF)Chest discomfort is often severe with the H1N1 flu.
The only way to stop the spread of the epidemic is to spread the awareness.
Body lack of water will compromise the overall immunity system. Remember the water-cure protocol formula found here.
Enjoy.
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/the_tamiflu_myth.html
H1N1 flu is about to be upon us and we need to be on top of information regarding it. Here is a comparison to the
normal cold symptoms .
Know the Difference between a Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms
Symptom :
Cold(C).
H1N1 Flu(HNF)
1.Fever :
(C)Fever is rare with a cold.
(HNF)Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100°F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the H1N1flu.
2.Coughing:
(C) A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.
(HNF) A non-productive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the H1N1 flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough).
3.Aches :
(C)Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.
(HNF)Severe aches and pains are common with the H1N1 flu.
4.Stuffy Nose :
(C)Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.
(HNF)Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the H1N1 flu.
5.Chills :
(C)Chills are uncommon with a cold.
(HNF)60% of people who have the H1N1 flu experience chills.
6.Tiredness :
(C)Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.
(HNF)Tiredness is moderate to severe with the H1N1 flu.
7.Sneezing :
(C)Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.
(HNF)Sneezing is not common with the H1N1 flu.
8.Sudden Symptoms :
(C)Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.
(HNF)The H1N1 flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.
9.Headache:
(C)A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.
(HNF) A headache is very common with the H1N1 flu, present in 80% of flu cases.
10.Sore Throat:
(C) Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.
(HNF)Sore throat is not commonly present with the H1N1 flu.
11.Chest Discomfort :
(C)Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.
(HNF)Chest discomfort is often severe with the H1N1 flu.
The only way to stop the spread of the epidemic is to spread the awareness.
Body lack of water will compromise the overall immunity system. Remember the water-cure protocol formula found here.
Enjoy.
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/the_tamiflu_myth.html
Monday, November 30, 2009
Avocado can do you good, baby.
Avocado Nutrition Structure/Function Statements
Avocados contain 81 micrograms of the carotenoid lutein, which some studies suggest may help maintain healthy eyes.
Avocados are included in Fruits & Veggies-More Matters™ consumer educational program to promote increased consumption of fruits and vegetables for good health.
Avocados contribute nearly 20 vitamins, minerals and beneficial plant compounds that can contribute to the nutrient quality of your diet.
Avocados, due to their mono and polyunsaturated fat content, are a healthy substitution for foods rich in saturated fat.
One-fifth of a medium avocado (1 oz) has 50 calories and contributes nearly 20 vitamins and minerals making it a good nutrient choice.
Avocados contain 76 milligrams beta-sitosterol in a 3-oz serving of avocado. Beta-sitosterol is a natural plant sterol which may help maintain healthy cholesterol levels.
Avocados and Babies
The avocado's smooth, creamy consistency makes it one of the first fresh fruits a baby can enjoy. Sodium- and cholesterol- free, avocados contain valuable nutrients including 8% of the recommended Daily Value (DV) for folate; 4% DV for fiber and potassium, 4% DV for vitamin E; and 2% DV for iron. A serving of avocado also contains 81 micrograms of the carotenoid lutein and 19 micrograms of beta-carotene. Per serving, avocados have 3.5 grams of unsaturated fats, which are known to be important for normal growth and development of the central nervous system and brain.
Avocados Nutrient Profile:
One-fifth of a medium avocado, or about one ounce, has 50 calories and contributes nearly 20 beneficial nutrients to the diet.
Avocados contribute nearly 20 vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. Phytonutrients are thought to help prevent many chronic diseases.
Avocados contribute nearly 20 vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, including 4% of the recommended Daily Value (DV) for vitamin E, 4% vitamin C, 8% folate, 4% fiber, 2% iron, 4% potassium, with 81 micrograms of lutein and 19 micrograms of beta-carotene.
Avocados act as a "nutrient booster" by enabling the body to absorb more fat-soluble nutrients, such as alpha- and beta-carotene as well as lutein, in foods that are eaten with the fruit.
Avocados and Heart Disease:
Avocados can help consumers meet the dietary guidelines of the American Heart Association, which are to eat a diet that is low to moderate in fat. The fats should be primarily unsaturated and low in saturated fat and cholesterol. The avocado is virtually the only fruit that has monounsaturated fat.
Avocados help assist consumers in meeting a major dietary goal of reducing saturated fat in the diet, when they are consumed in place of saturated-fat containing foods.
Avocado and Weight Loss/Maintenance:
When used instead of other fats, avocados contribute nearly 20 vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients and can be part of a calorie-reduced diet.
Avocados can be a satisfying addition to a calorie-reduced diet, when they are eaten in lieu of other fats.
When enjoyed in place of other fats, avocados can be a satisfying addition to a calorie-controlled diet.
Spread and Dip Nutritional Comparison for Fresh Avocados:
Fresh avocado on sandwiches and toast or substituted as a spread in place of many other popular foods may help reduce dietary intake of calories, fat, saturated fat, sodium and cholesterol.
Want to reduce your cholesterol intake? Try fresh avocado on sandwiches and toast or substitute as a spread in place of many other popular foods to reduce your intake of cholesterol, calories, fat, saturated fat, and sodium.
Looking for a twist on spreads and dips? A 1-ounce serving of fresh avocados contain 0mg of cholesterol, 0mg of sodium, 0.5g saturated fat. See the chart below for examples of how fresh avocados are a great substitute on sandwiches, toast or substituted as a spread in place of many other popular foods.
Try fresh avocado on sandwiches and toast in place of many other popular foods to reduce your intake of cholesterol, calories, fat, saturated fat, and sodium.
Reference: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18 (2005) and FDA Food Labeling Guidelines for Voluntary Nutrition Labeling of Raw Fruits, Vegetable and Fish (Vol. 71, No. 159); Appendix C to Part 101 - Nutrition Facts for Raw Fruits and Vegetables (2006).
Nutritional values are for the item listed only; not as consumed with other foods or ingredients.
Avocados and Lutein:
Avocados are a good way to get more lutein in the diet. An ounce of avocado contains 81 micrograms of lutein. Lutein has been shown to be concentrated in the macula of the eye, and research suggests that it may help maintain healthy eyesight as we age.
Lutein is a natural antioxidant that may help maintain eye health as we get older. By adding avocado to foods like salads, salsa, soups or sandwiches you can get more of the phytonutrient lutein in your diet.
Avocados contain 81 micrograms of the carotenoid lutein, which some studies suggest may help maintain healthy eyes.
Avocados are included in Fruits & Veggies-More Matters™ consumer educational program to promote increased consumption of fruits and vegetables for good health.
Avocados contribute nearly 20 vitamins, minerals and beneficial plant compounds that can contribute to the nutrient quality of your diet.
Avocados, due to their mono and polyunsaturated fat content, are a healthy substitution for foods rich in saturated fat.
One-fifth of a medium avocado (1 oz) has 50 calories and contributes nearly 20 vitamins and minerals making it a good nutrient choice.
Avocados contain 76 milligrams beta-sitosterol in a 3-oz serving of avocado. Beta-sitosterol is a natural plant sterol which may help maintain healthy cholesterol levels.
Avocados and Babies
The avocado's smooth, creamy consistency makes it one of the first fresh fruits a baby can enjoy. Sodium- and cholesterol- free, avocados contain valuable nutrients including 8% of the recommended Daily Value (DV) for folate; 4% DV for fiber and potassium, 4% DV for vitamin E; and 2% DV for iron. A serving of avocado also contains 81 micrograms of the carotenoid lutein and 19 micrograms of beta-carotene. Per serving, avocados have 3.5 grams of unsaturated fats, which are known to be important for normal growth and development of the central nervous system and brain.
Avocados Nutrient Profile:
One-fifth of a medium avocado, or about one ounce, has 50 calories and contributes nearly 20 beneficial nutrients to the diet.
Avocados contribute nearly 20 vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. Phytonutrients are thought to help prevent many chronic diseases.
Avocados contribute nearly 20 vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, including 4% of the recommended Daily Value (DV) for vitamin E, 4% vitamin C, 8% folate, 4% fiber, 2% iron, 4% potassium, with 81 micrograms of lutein and 19 micrograms of beta-carotene.
Avocados act as a "nutrient booster" by enabling the body to absorb more fat-soluble nutrients, such as alpha- and beta-carotene as well as lutein, in foods that are eaten with the fruit.
Avocados and Heart Disease:
Avocados can help consumers meet the dietary guidelines of the American Heart Association, which are to eat a diet that is low to moderate in fat. The fats should be primarily unsaturated and low in saturated fat and cholesterol. The avocado is virtually the only fruit that has monounsaturated fat.
Avocados help assist consumers in meeting a major dietary goal of reducing saturated fat in the diet, when they are consumed in place of saturated-fat containing foods.
Avocado and Weight Loss/Maintenance:
When used instead of other fats, avocados contribute nearly 20 vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients and can be part of a calorie-reduced diet.
Avocados can be a satisfying addition to a calorie-reduced diet, when they are eaten in lieu of other fats.
When enjoyed in place of other fats, avocados can be a satisfying addition to a calorie-controlled diet.
Spread and Dip Nutritional Comparison for Fresh Avocados:
Fresh avocado on sandwiches and toast or substituted as a spread in place of many other popular foods may help reduce dietary intake of calories, fat, saturated fat, sodium and cholesterol.
Want to reduce your cholesterol intake? Try fresh avocado on sandwiches and toast or substitute as a spread in place of many other popular foods to reduce your intake of cholesterol, calories, fat, saturated fat, and sodium.
Looking for a twist on spreads and dips? A 1-ounce serving of fresh avocados contain 0mg of cholesterol, 0mg of sodium, 0.5g saturated fat. See the chart below for examples of how fresh avocados are a great substitute on sandwiches, toast or substituted as a spread in place of many other popular foods.
Try fresh avocado on sandwiches and toast in place of many other popular foods to reduce your intake of cholesterol, calories, fat, saturated fat, and sodium.
Reference: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18 (2005) and FDA Food Labeling Guidelines for Voluntary Nutrition Labeling of Raw Fruits, Vegetable and Fish (Vol. 71, No. 159); Appendix C to Part 101 - Nutrition Facts for Raw Fruits and Vegetables (2006).
Nutritional values are for the item listed only; not as consumed with other foods or ingredients.
Avocados and Lutein:
Avocados are a good way to get more lutein in the diet. An ounce of avocado contains 81 micrograms of lutein. Lutein has been shown to be concentrated in the macula of the eye, and research suggests that it may help maintain healthy eyesight as we age.
Lutein is a natural antioxidant that may help maintain eye health as we get older. By adding avocado to foods like salads, salsa, soups or sandwiches you can get more of the phytonutrient lutein in your diet.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Hello brainy?
Hello Brainy, time to do more and talk less?
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,26271082-5014239,00.html Brain surgeon Dr Charlie Teo warns against mobiles, home appliances
By Cheryl Critchley
Herald Sun,October 28, 2009 02:00am
Dr Charlie Teo, from Channel 7's Last Chance Surgery, says it's better to avoid electro-magnetic radiation
Surgeon warns of electromagnetic radiation
Takes 'prevention better than cure' approach
Global study: Mobile cancer link
Mobiles: How much radiation is there?
BRAIN cancer surgeon Charlie Teo has urged people to put mobile phones on loudspeaker, move clock radios to the foot of the bed and wait until microwaves have finished beeping before opening them.
The controversial Sydney specialist told a Melbourne fundraiser that although the jury was still out on mobile phones and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, we should not take risks.
"Even though the jury's not in, just to err on the side of safety I would try and limit the amount of electromagnetic radiation that you're exposed to," he said.
"The American government, for example, recommend that all electrical appliances should be put at the foot of the bed and not the head of the bed.
"Electric blankets should be turned off before you get in bed and definitely wait for those five beeps before you open the microwave.
"With the mobile phone I encourage you to put it on loudspeaker and step outside rather than sticking it up to your brain."
Reader's Comments: Brain tumour doc warns against gadgetsNEWS.com.au,
Global study into mobile cancer linkNEWS.com.au, 26 Oct 2009
Dr Teo, who tackles tumours other surgeons deem inoperable, said some hair dyes, particularly red, could also cause brain cancer in people with a predisposition.
"The body needs some genetic predisposition. The hair dye, the mobile phone, they're just catalysts but you probably need some sort of genetic aberration to get the cancer in the first place," he said.
Fast cancers
Dr Teo, who stars in Channel Seven's Last Chance Surgery, was in Melbourne last week for the Blackwood8 fundraiser at Croydon golf club.
The group was founded by family and friends of Sally White, a patient of Dr Teo's whose outlook has improved dramatically.
Dr Teo said while breast cancer doubled its cell numbers in weeks or months, the quickest brain cancers took just 16 hours.
No age group was immune and the incidence of brain tumours was growing.
"It's increasing in frequency both in this country and developing countries and it used to be ranked out of the top 10 but it's just joined the top 10 most common cancers," he said.
Recent studies have raised alarm bells about mobile phones.
An unreleased World Health Organisation study reportedly found "a significantly increased risk" of some brain tumours related to use of mobile phones for 10 years or more.
A Suleyman Demirel University study in Turkey also found wearing a mobile phone on your belt may lead to decreased bone density in an area of the pelvis commonly used for bone grafts.
Dr Teo said there had been some advancements in treating tumours, like microwave therapy and putting chemotherapy directly into a tumour. A healthy diet, meditation and positive thought could also be beneficial.
"We believe that they probably boost the immune system," he said.
Dr Teo's tips to reduce brain tumour risks
- Get eight hours sleep a night and eat well to boost your immune system
- Keep electrical appliances like clock radios at the foot of the bed
- Turn electric blankets off before retiring
- Put mobile phones on hands-free
- Wait until the microwave finishes beeping before opening it
_________________________________________________________________
Readers' Comments
Brain tumour doc warns against gadgets
By Cheryl Critchley,October 28, 2009 02:00am
Article from: Surgeon warns of electromagnetic radiation
Takes 'prevention better than cure' approach
Global study: Mobile cancer link
Mobiles: How much radiation is there?
BRAIN cancer surgeon Charlie Teo has urged people to put mobile phones on loudspeaker, move clock radios to the foot of the bed and wait until microwaves have finished beeping before opening them.
The controversial Sydney specialist told a Melbourne fundraiser that although the jury was still out on mobile phones and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, we should not take risks.
Read full story
I think this is just about the best advise I've heard: in the absence of concrete evidence either way, err on the side of caution. I'd be interested to hear Charlie's view on wireless internet connections, that are now just about everywhere. Are they potentially dangerous, or are they a completeley different type of thing?
Posted by: SB 12:30pm October 29, 2009
Comment 26 of 26
Mobile phones, as with any radio wave transmitting device, should be labelled "minimun exposure is prudent".. but they never will; users quote 'convenience' as the #1 reason for using wireless, and that's just pure laziness.
Posted by: radio tech 9:40am October 29, 2009
Comment 25 of 26
Well said NJ of Canberra. That's really all there is to it. And people shouldn't be addicted to them in they way that they are.
Posted by: Roberto of North Sydney 3:46pm October 28, 2009
Comment 24 of 26
Mobile phones cannot be good for you, full stop.
Posted by: NJ of Canberra 12:12pm October 28, 2009
Comment 23 of 26
No one has the answers, but the decision is simple. You either follow the thought pattern below: Avoid pesticides (Eat Organic) Don't use microwaves Try meditate Avoid Sodium Laureth Sulfate Avoid food preservatives Do not eat margarine Filter your water very well. and so on... If you believe it, follow it, like I do. If you don't believe it, then keep using microwaves and doing what you do. Cancer may be just a roll of the dice.? Who knows? Not me.
Posted by: AG 11:28am October 28, 2009
Comment 22 of 26
Agree with neurodoc. Charlie i admire your work but be part of the scientific solution, not just the vocal one. I appreciate the connection but no-one is able to categorically prove the connection, nor make the effort to do so. Literature searches don't save lives research does. The beeps mean that the thing has finished. If it was dangerous to open the door there would be locks on them until you hit a "stop button. Hair colouring use a colour and peroxide. The enter the hair-dead tissue by the way- and stay there. Doomsayers have littered the Internet with unfounded pseudoscience. Red dyes is another one. There is more risk from getting diesal on your hand at the servo, yet none of you wear gloves to fill up.
Posted by: The Cannulator of Melbourne 11:21am October 28, 2009
Comment 21 of 26
Better to take precautions than wait until you have cancer & finally realise that you mobile caused it!!!! so, be wise & listen & don't just hear...& ignore...thanks doc..
Posted by: May Alisha of Port Moresby,PNG 11:19am October 28, 2009
Comment 20 of 26
These days, everything causes cancer... it is better to introduce packaging/ ingredients description to mention % chances of getting cancer using them.
Posted by: Ben of Canberra 11:13am October 28, 2009
Comment 19 of 26
Ken of Sydney, The magnetic fields generated by the largre high frequency EHT transformer in a microwave is the concern
Posted by: Greg 11:11am October 28, 2009
Comment 18 of 26
U r right Steve - it is so easy to dismiss advice because there is always a greedy lawyer and ppl crying that they didn't know... Ppl are still trying it with cigarettes! And watching gluttonous eaters and boozers cry that the heart disease crept up on them or their kidneys just failed, no warning. I had a clock radio near my bed and didn't link it to the difficulty in breathing and palpitations I got when trying to sleep... One day I unplugged it while cleaning and forgot to plug it back in... Night one - no palpitations... I left it out. One day out of interest I plugged it back in...you guessed it, the problems came back... If one device can disrupt my heart in such a way, imagine 9 hours a night, 365 days of the year....
Posted by: NURSE Practitioner of Perth WA 11:01am October 28, 2009
Comment 17 of 26
He is a neurosurgeon and a very good one too. But he is not a researcher into the cause of brain tumours and he - at least in this article - does not validate his comments with evidence. Technical gadgets are frightening to people who don't understand how they work. And a neurosurgoen like Dr Teo, who enjoys a very popular status certainly can add to such anxiety. Hairdryers create an electromagnetic field which is amongst the strongest if not the strongest of all house hold appliances. However they have been around forever, people grew up with them ( putting them close to their head, just like mobile phones) and think they understand how they work. Therefor they must be much safer than mobile phones or other more modern stuff.
Posted by: Brisbane000 11:01am October 28, 2009
Comment 16 of 26
Sorry to break the break the bad news - but we are all going to die! THere is nothing you can do to prevent it! It is more important how you live rather than how you die! Concentrate your thoughts & efforts there.
Posted by: THe Other Martin of Perth 10:57am October 28, 2009
Comment 15 of 26
Pay attention people, you do not want any form of cancer, and you should be doing everything possible to avoid it. Thank you Dr Teo!
Posted by: kathy of Brisbane 10:56am October 28, 2009
Comment 14 of 26
The moniker "Controversial specialist" is the most accurate statement in this article. For some rational perspective on risk taking Dr Teo rides a motorcycle. Note also that microwaves travel at the speed of light, so one would have to open the door very fast indeed if the microwaves were still "diffusing". Accepting that Dr Teo may have been quoted out of context, I suggest Dr Teo studies the evidence before he speaks on electromagnetic radiation to lay people, and while he is at it allow himself to become involved in existing academic peer review and clinical governance programs. This will be important for optimal patient outcomes.
Posted by: neurodoc 10:46am October 28, 2009
Comment 13 of 26
If all this is so bad for you why are they not banned. I do not understand as Cigarettes are bad for you ( I agree), Achohol is bad for you( In moderation they say). The government won't have to worry about young ones of today living a long while with all these modern cons. I guess that is why my mum is still alive at 92 because she did not have all these thing s when she was young. Oh and by the way she is still dying her hair blond not red. I do believe it is in the genes. Good luck everyone as I think that is what you need these days and lots of it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Pamela Skipper of Castle Hill 10:33am October 28, 2009
Comment 12 of 26
The microwave bit is a load of bull. Microwaves are non-ionizing. They won't cause cancer.
Posted by: Ken of Sydney 10:33am October 28, 2009
Comment 11 of 26
I can't seriously believe people are so stupid as to believe there is "residual radiation" in a microwave after it stops. It's electro-magnetic radiation that propagates at (300,000 kms/sec) LIGHT SPEED! It's like saying there is still "residual" light in a room 1-5 seconds after you flick the light-switch!
Posted by: Steve 10:32am October 28, 2009
Comment 10 of 26
We have an early 80s microwave that has no '5 beep warning' all it has is a bell when the dial reaches 0 minutes. I never wait for that bell because most of the time I only want to heat something for less than a minute, so I just open the door mid-heating session. Is that bad for me?
Posted by: Redding 10:32am October 28, 2009
Comment 9 of 26
for those of you who are dismissing these messages, i hope you don't get brain cancer and need operating on. Charlie Teo is our countries leading neurosurgeon. if i were to have any neurological issue charlie teo would be one person i'd put my money on. he's just making suggestions, not giving you instructions.
Posted by: Loubells81 of Sydney 10:31am October 28, 2009
Comment 8 of 26
Perhaps waiting for the 5 microwave beeps is a way to delay close proximity to components within the microwave that may still be emitting radiation in the initial moments after the heating/cooking process has stopped. Red hair dye might sound stupid, but then again I'm no brain surgeon - this guys is, so I'm more inclined to listen than ingore. Lucky for me I'm a Ranga.
Posted by: Greg of Ballarat 10:25am October 28, 2009
Comment 7 of 26
Its not until you've had cancer that you really sit up and take notice of these stories. The problem with defining what causes cancer is that there are so many environmental factors at play, its hard to prove any one of them might have an influence above the rest. If a promient brain surgeon says don't use red hair dye or use your mobile phone too much, its because he wants to see less people get the disease. He's not getting sponsored by anyone to say these things.
Posted by: steve 10:25am October 28, 2009
Comment 6 of 26
Red of Sydney - hair dyes have been implicated in a number of different cancers, particularly bladder and brain, with those who use permanent dyes frequently (10 times a year) at a high risk of developing bladder cancer. There are plenty of research articles to back this up.
Posted by: Cancer Nurse of Chemoland 10:24am October 28, 2009
Comment 5 of 26
The beeps indicate that there is still residual microwave radiation inside. Opening the door before the beeps finish doesn't give enough time for the residual radiation to diffuse.
Posted by: Karange of Guadalcanal 10:00am October 28, 2009
Comment 4 of 26
Red, you might want to ask what actual chemicals are in red hair die before you dismiss the possibility. It's worth reiterating that the Dr is saying some precautionary measures that take little to implement might be useful until the final verdict is in.
Posted by: Groo the Blunderer 9:59am October 28, 2009
Comment 3 of 26
Red hair dye causes brain tumours? That's even more stupid than the old adage "underarm deodorant and underwire bras cause breast cancer".
Posted by: Red of Sydney 9:31am October 28, 2009
Comment 2 of 26
Can someone please explain what the five beeps on the microwave means? I assumed that it was simply an audible signal that the timer had finished. Surely when the power turns off i.e. the microwave stops cooking and therefore there is no issue? Can some technical person please answer this question?
Posted by: Ross Corrigan of Sydney 9:28am October 28, 2009
Comment 1 of 26
All comments are welocme and unedited or uncensored.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,26271082-5014239,00.html Brain surgeon Dr Charlie Teo warns against mobiles, home appliances
By Cheryl Critchley
Herald Sun,October 28, 2009 02:00am
Dr Charlie Teo, from Channel 7's Last Chance Surgery, says it's better to avoid electro-magnetic radiation
Surgeon warns of electromagnetic radiation
Takes 'prevention better than cure' approach
Global study: Mobile cancer link
Mobiles: How much radiation is there?
BRAIN cancer surgeon Charlie Teo has urged people to put mobile phones on loudspeaker, move clock radios to the foot of the bed and wait until microwaves have finished beeping before opening them.
The controversial Sydney specialist told a Melbourne fundraiser that although the jury was still out on mobile phones and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, we should not take risks.
"Even though the jury's not in, just to err on the side of safety I would try and limit the amount of electromagnetic radiation that you're exposed to," he said.
"The American government, for example, recommend that all electrical appliances should be put at the foot of the bed and not the head of the bed.
"Electric blankets should be turned off before you get in bed and definitely wait for those five beeps before you open the microwave.
"With the mobile phone I encourage you to put it on loudspeaker and step outside rather than sticking it up to your brain."
Reader's Comments: Brain tumour doc warns against gadgetsNEWS.com.au,
Global study into mobile cancer linkNEWS.com.au, 26 Oct 2009
Dr Teo, who tackles tumours other surgeons deem inoperable, said some hair dyes, particularly red, could also cause brain cancer in people with a predisposition.
"The body needs some genetic predisposition. The hair dye, the mobile phone, they're just catalysts but you probably need some sort of genetic aberration to get the cancer in the first place," he said.
Fast cancers
Dr Teo, who stars in Channel Seven's Last Chance Surgery, was in Melbourne last week for the Blackwood8 fundraiser at Croydon golf club.
The group was founded by family and friends of Sally White, a patient of Dr Teo's whose outlook has improved dramatically.
Dr Teo said while breast cancer doubled its cell numbers in weeks or months, the quickest brain cancers took just 16 hours.
No age group was immune and the incidence of brain tumours was growing.
"It's increasing in frequency both in this country and developing countries and it used to be ranked out of the top 10 but it's just joined the top 10 most common cancers," he said.
Recent studies have raised alarm bells about mobile phones.
An unreleased World Health Organisation study reportedly found "a significantly increased risk" of some brain tumours related to use of mobile phones for 10 years or more.
A Suleyman Demirel University study in Turkey also found wearing a mobile phone on your belt may lead to decreased bone density in an area of the pelvis commonly used for bone grafts.
Dr Teo said there had been some advancements in treating tumours, like microwave therapy and putting chemotherapy directly into a tumour. A healthy diet, meditation and positive thought could also be beneficial.
"We believe that they probably boost the immune system," he said.
Dr Teo's tips to reduce brain tumour risks
- Get eight hours sleep a night and eat well to boost your immune system
- Keep electrical appliances like clock radios at the foot of the bed
- Turn electric blankets off before retiring
- Put mobile phones on hands-free
- Wait until the microwave finishes beeping before opening it
_________________________________________________________________
Readers' Comments
Brain tumour doc warns against gadgets
By Cheryl Critchley,October 28, 2009 02:00am
Article from: Surgeon warns of electromagnetic radiation
Takes 'prevention better than cure' approach
Global study: Mobile cancer link
Mobiles: How much radiation is there?
BRAIN cancer surgeon Charlie Teo has urged people to put mobile phones on loudspeaker, move clock radios to the foot of the bed and wait until microwaves have finished beeping before opening them.
The controversial Sydney specialist told a Melbourne fundraiser that although the jury was still out on mobile phones and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, we should not take risks.
Read full story
I think this is just about the best advise I've heard: in the absence of concrete evidence either way, err on the side of caution. I'd be interested to hear Charlie's view on wireless internet connections, that are now just about everywhere. Are they potentially dangerous, or are they a completeley different type of thing?
Posted by: SB 12:30pm October 29, 2009
Comment 26 of 26
Mobile phones, as with any radio wave transmitting device, should be labelled "minimun exposure is prudent".. but they never will; users quote 'convenience' as the #1 reason for using wireless, and that's just pure laziness.
Posted by: radio tech 9:40am October 29, 2009
Comment 25 of 26
Well said NJ of Canberra. That's really all there is to it. And people shouldn't be addicted to them in they way that they are.
Posted by: Roberto of North Sydney 3:46pm October 28, 2009
Comment 24 of 26
Mobile phones cannot be good for you, full stop.
Posted by: NJ of Canberra 12:12pm October 28, 2009
Comment 23 of 26
No one has the answers, but the decision is simple. You either follow the thought pattern below: Avoid pesticides (Eat Organic) Don't use microwaves Try meditate Avoid Sodium Laureth Sulfate Avoid food preservatives Do not eat margarine Filter your water very well. and so on... If you believe it, follow it, like I do. If you don't believe it, then keep using microwaves and doing what you do. Cancer may be just a roll of the dice.? Who knows? Not me.
Posted by: AG 11:28am October 28, 2009
Comment 22 of 26
Agree with neurodoc. Charlie i admire your work but be part of the scientific solution, not just the vocal one. I appreciate the connection but no-one is able to categorically prove the connection, nor make the effort to do so. Literature searches don't save lives research does. The beeps mean that the thing has finished. If it was dangerous to open the door there would be locks on them until you hit a "stop button. Hair colouring use a colour and peroxide. The enter the hair-dead tissue by the way- and stay there. Doomsayers have littered the Internet with unfounded pseudoscience. Red dyes is another one. There is more risk from getting diesal on your hand at the servo, yet none of you wear gloves to fill up.
Posted by: The Cannulator of Melbourne 11:21am October 28, 2009
Comment 21 of 26
Better to take precautions than wait until you have cancer & finally realise that you mobile caused it!!!! so, be wise & listen & don't just hear...& ignore...thanks doc..
Posted by: May Alisha of Port Moresby,PNG 11:19am October 28, 2009
Comment 20 of 26
These days, everything causes cancer... it is better to introduce packaging/ ingredients description to mention % chances of getting cancer using them.
Posted by: Ben of Canberra 11:13am October 28, 2009
Comment 19 of 26
Ken of Sydney, The magnetic fields generated by the largre high frequency EHT transformer in a microwave is the concern
Posted by: Greg 11:11am October 28, 2009
Comment 18 of 26
U r right Steve - it is so easy to dismiss advice because there is always a greedy lawyer and ppl crying that they didn't know... Ppl are still trying it with cigarettes! And watching gluttonous eaters and boozers cry that the heart disease crept up on them or their kidneys just failed, no warning. I had a clock radio near my bed and didn't link it to the difficulty in breathing and palpitations I got when trying to sleep... One day I unplugged it while cleaning and forgot to plug it back in... Night one - no palpitations... I left it out. One day out of interest I plugged it back in...you guessed it, the problems came back... If one device can disrupt my heart in such a way, imagine 9 hours a night, 365 days of the year....
Posted by: NURSE Practitioner of Perth WA 11:01am October 28, 2009
Comment 17 of 26
He is a neurosurgeon and a very good one too. But he is not a researcher into the cause of brain tumours and he - at least in this article - does not validate his comments with evidence. Technical gadgets are frightening to people who don't understand how they work. And a neurosurgoen like Dr Teo, who enjoys a very popular status certainly can add to such anxiety. Hairdryers create an electromagnetic field which is amongst the strongest if not the strongest of all house hold appliances. However they have been around forever, people grew up with them ( putting them close to their head, just like mobile phones) and think they understand how they work. Therefor they must be much safer than mobile phones or other more modern stuff.
Posted by: Brisbane000 11:01am October 28, 2009
Comment 16 of 26
Sorry to break the break the bad news - but we are all going to die! THere is nothing you can do to prevent it! It is more important how you live rather than how you die! Concentrate your thoughts & efforts there.
Posted by: THe Other Martin of Perth 10:57am October 28, 2009
Comment 15 of 26
Pay attention people, you do not want any form of cancer, and you should be doing everything possible to avoid it. Thank you Dr Teo!
Posted by: kathy of Brisbane 10:56am October 28, 2009
Comment 14 of 26
The moniker "Controversial specialist" is the most accurate statement in this article. For some rational perspective on risk taking Dr Teo rides a motorcycle. Note also that microwaves travel at the speed of light, so one would have to open the door very fast indeed if the microwaves were still "diffusing". Accepting that Dr Teo may have been quoted out of context, I suggest Dr Teo studies the evidence before he speaks on electromagnetic radiation to lay people, and while he is at it allow himself to become involved in existing academic peer review and clinical governance programs. This will be important for optimal patient outcomes.
Posted by: neurodoc 10:46am October 28, 2009
Comment 13 of 26
If all this is so bad for you why are they not banned. I do not understand as Cigarettes are bad for you ( I agree), Achohol is bad for you( In moderation they say). The government won't have to worry about young ones of today living a long while with all these modern cons. I guess that is why my mum is still alive at 92 because she did not have all these thing s when she was young. Oh and by the way she is still dying her hair blond not red. I do believe it is in the genes. Good luck everyone as I think that is what you need these days and lots of it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Pamela Skipper of Castle Hill 10:33am October 28, 2009
Comment 12 of 26
The microwave bit is a load of bull. Microwaves are non-ionizing. They won't cause cancer.
Posted by: Ken of Sydney 10:33am October 28, 2009
Comment 11 of 26
I can't seriously believe people are so stupid as to believe there is "residual radiation" in a microwave after it stops. It's electro-magnetic radiation that propagates at (300,000 kms/sec) LIGHT SPEED! It's like saying there is still "residual" light in a room 1-5 seconds after you flick the light-switch!
Posted by: Steve 10:32am October 28, 2009
Comment 10 of 26
We have an early 80s microwave that has no '5 beep warning' all it has is a bell when the dial reaches 0 minutes. I never wait for that bell because most of the time I only want to heat something for less than a minute, so I just open the door mid-heating session. Is that bad for me?
Posted by: Redding 10:32am October 28, 2009
Comment 9 of 26
for those of you who are dismissing these messages, i hope you don't get brain cancer and need operating on. Charlie Teo is our countries leading neurosurgeon. if i were to have any neurological issue charlie teo would be one person i'd put my money on. he's just making suggestions, not giving you instructions.
Posted by: Loubells81 of Sydney 10:31am October 28, 2009
Comment 8 of 26
Perhaps waiting for the 5 microwave beeps is a way to delay close proximity to components within the microwave that may still be emitting radiation in the initial moments after the heating/cooking process has stopped. Red hair dye might sound stupid, but then again I'm no brain surgeon - this guys is, so I'm more inclined to listen than ingore. Lucky for me I'm a Ranga.
Posted by: Greg of Ballarat 10:25am October 28, 2009
Comment 7 of 26
Its not until you've had cancer that you really sit up and take notice of these stories. The problem with defining what causes cancer is that there are so many environmental factors at play, its hard to prove any one of them might have an influence above the rest. If a promient brain surgeon says don't use red hair dye or use your mobile phone too much, its because he wants to see less people get the disease. He's not getting sponsored by anyone to say these things.
Posted by: steve 10:25am October 28, 2009
Comment 6 of 26
Red of Sydney - hair dyes have been implicated in a number of different cancers, particularly bladder and brain, with those who use permanent dyes frequently (10 times a year) at a high risk of developing bladder cancer. There are plenty of research articles to back this up.
Posted by: Cancer Nurse of Chemoland 10:24am October 28, 2009
Comment 5 of 26
The beeps indicate that there is still residual microwave radiation inside. Opening the door before the beeps finish doesn't give enough time for the residual radiation to diffuse.
Posted by: Karange of Guadalcanal 10:00am October 28, 2009
Comment 4 of 26
Red, you might want to ask what actual chemicals are in red hair die before you dismiss the possibility. It's worth reiterating that the Dr is saying some precautionary measures that take little to implement might be useful until the final verdict is in.
Posted by: Groo the Blunderer 9:59am October 28, 2009
Comment 3 of 26
Red hair dye causes brain tumours? That's even more stupid than the old adage "underarm deodorant and underwire bras cause breast cancer".
Posted by: Red of Sydney 9:31am October 28, 2009
Comment 2 of 26
Can someone please explain what the five beeps on the microwave means? I assumed that it was simply an audible signal that the timer had finished. Surely when the power turns off i.e. the microwave stops cooking and therefore there is no issue? Can some technical person please answer this question?
Posted by: Ross Corrigan of Sydney 9:28am October 28, 2009
Comment 1 of 26
All comments are welocme and unedited or uncensored.
Let's exercise Common Sense
Water Cure and Mammography Debate
When I discovered that water is a better natural medication for a host of disease conditions than anything the drug industry has to offer, I wrote the book Your Body's Many Cries for Water for the public. Because the relevant authorities (which I had approached) don't want to disseminate this simple discovery to the public. I just left them to their own agendas and carry on this personal crusade to make known this discovery of water-cure many diseases, for free.
The Mammography Debate, Part II
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Last week we began a discussion of the new USPSTF recommendations on breast cancer screening. We conclude, with references, this week.
Barbara Brenner of the San Francisco-based group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA), is one of the rare leaders who has come out in support of the USPSTF recommendations. She says that the new recommendations would simply bring the US in line with most European countries, and hailed the USPSTF panel's results. A BCA spokesperson told me that they have been deluged with comments from their members, not all of them supportive. (Note: I am a scientific advisor to Breast Cancer Action.) A lot of people are really upset by the loss of security that mammography provides.
Brenner raises the point that some patients, who have been led to believe that mammography is a safe and effective way of reducing their risk of cancer, will see this as an attack on themselves, or at least a threatened reduction in their healthcare coverage. This is particularly so with women whose tumors were first discovered via mammograms or breast self-examination (BSE). Yet Brenner comments:
"Some people will be upset because their breast cancer was found on a mammogram that would not have happened under the new guidelines. Some people will be confused because they don't understand what the downsides could possibly be to the early detection of breast cancer. It's very difficult for people to ignore their personal situations in thinking about what should happen as a matter of policy. But emerging science tells us that we need to try to do that if we're going to get to the best place in terms of both reducing deaths from breast cancer and minimizing the harms that occur when we do mammography screening."
Patients - including those who may feel they have benefited from BSE or mammography-need to reflect that all medical procedures carry risks as well as benefits. So what is the potential harm of near-universal screening mammography? Brenner highlights four problem areas:
1. False negative results: These occur when a mammogram indicates that a woman is without cancer, yet it is actually present. (This is what happened to New York Times author Gail Collins, as she reported in a recent column on the controversy.)
2. False positives results: The mammogram indicates a problem, yet a subsequent biopsy (tissue sample) shows that there is no cancer present. A big relief-but the whole experience results in fear, stress, expense, and physical and emotional scarring.
3. Mammography involves x-rays and x-rays have been called the "complete carcinogen," because they can both initiate and promote cancer growth. A few years ago, researchers at Columbia University wrote: "There is evidence that low energy X rays as used in mammographic screening produce an increased biological risk per unit dose relative to higher energy photons. At low doses, the increased risk appears to be of a factor of 2….For older women, the benefit is still likely to outweigh the radiation risk. For women less than 50 years of age, however, this increase in the estimated radiation risk might indicate a somewhat later age than currently suggested, by about 5 to10 years, at which to recommend commencement of routine breast screening" (Brenner 2002).
4. Overdiagnosis of "pseudo-malignancies," i.e., the discovery of non-malignant abnormalities that would never progress to outright cancer. Finding pseudo-malignancies swells the ranks of "cancer survivors," swelling the ranks and coffers of various non-profit agencies. Adding pseudo-malignancies to real cancers also has the side effect of improving the alleged "cure rate" of the disease. That's because almost all of these people will be "cured" (albeit of a disease that they did not really have). But without mammograms these people would never have known they had a non-consequential slight abnormality. My favorite author on the topic is H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, and author of Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not, and Here's Why
In the past, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Radiology (ACR) all recommended annual mammography for all women over the age of 40. The statistic that was most commonly quoted is that by detecting breast cancer early, before it has become large enough to be clinically apparent as an obvious lump in the breast, mammography reduces the mortality rate from breast cancer by 20 to 30 percent. So fixed has this statistic become in the minds of women, the medical profession and the media that by repetition alone it has now attained the status of unimpeachable fact. A closer examination of the data yields a somewhat less certain picture. The benefits of mammography are much smaller than we've been led to believe.
Professor Samuel Epstein, MD, professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition has tirelessly drawn attention to the radiation risks of screening mammography, has pointed out that sobering fact that over a period of 10 years, a pre-menopausal woman undergoing annual mammograms receives almost half the dose of radiation that was measurable within a mile of the Hiroshima bomb epicenter. (Note: I am a board member of the CPC.)
I too have been a long-time skeptic on the benefits of routine mammography. In my book The Cancer Industry (published as the Cancer Syndrome in 1980) I wrote critically about this mass screening program. I thought it would do more harm than good. In particular, I wrote about the work of John Bailar, MD, editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and his early and vociferous opposition to the mammography program.
A few months ago I also published a Special Report on Mammography, Biopsy and the Detection of Breast Cancer. Here is what Joel Evans, MD, founder and director of The Center for Women's Health, Darien, CT, and assistant clinical professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York said about my report:
"Ralph Moss has written a scholarly and frightening treatise that is a 'must read' for both the general public and all health professionals. It has the capacity to transform our approach to breast cancer screening and diagnosis. It is a remarkable gift to the women of the world."
We are now offering this report for $9.95, half the usual price. To order our special mammography report, please click here.
--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
References
I highly recommend Prof. Aronowitz's excellent op-ed in the New York Times, "Addicted to Mammograms," Nov. 20, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20aronowitz.html
American Cancer Society statement on mammography:
http://tinyurl.com/yk8q8fu
Barbara Brenner and Breast Cancer Action's statement:
http://tinyurl.com/yhoqq68
Brenner DJ, Sawant SG, et al. Routine screening mammography: how important is the radiation-risk side of the benefit-risk equation? Int J Radiat Biol. 2002;78:1065-1067
National Cancer Institute newsletter:
http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/111709/page2
USPSTF position paper:
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full
HHS Secretary's statement:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/11/20091118a.html
When I discovered that water is a better natural medication for a host of disease conditions than anything the drug industry has to offer, I wrote the book Your Body's Many Cries for Water for the public. Because the relevant authorities (which I had approached) don't want to disseminate this simple discovery to the public. I just left them to their own agendas and carry on this personal crusade to make known this discovery of water-cure many diseases, for free.
The Mammography Debate, Part II
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Last week we began a discussion of the new USPSTF recommendations on breast cancer screening. We conclude, with references, this week.
Barbara Brenner of the San Francisco-based group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA), is one of the rare leaders who has come out in support of the USPSTF recommendations. She says that the new recommendations would simply bring the US in line with most European countries, and hailed the USPSTF panel's results. A BCA spokesperson told me that they have been deluged with comments from their members, not all of them supportive. (Note: I am a scientific advisor to Breast Cancer Action.) A lot of people are really upset by the loss of security that mammography provides.
Brenner raises the point that some patients, who have been led to believe that mammography is a safe and effective way of reducing their risk of cancer, will see this as an attack on themselves, or at least a threatened reduction in their healthcare coverage. This is particularly so with women whose tumors were first discovered via mammograms or breast self-examination (BSE). Yet Brenner comments:
"Some people will be upset because their breast cancer was found on a mammogram that would not have happened under the new guidelines. Some people will be confused because they don't understand what the downsides could possibly be to the early detection of breast cancer. It's very difficult for people to ignore their personal situations in thinking about what should happen as a matter of policy. But emerging science tells us that we need to try to do that if we're going to get to the best place in terms of both reducing deaths from breast cancer and minimizing the harms that occur when we do mammography screening."
Patients - including those who may feel they have benefited from BSE or mammography-need to reflect that all medical procedures carry risks as well as benefits. So what is the potential harm of near-universal screening mammography? Brenner highlights four problem areas:
1. False negative results: These occur when a mammogram indicates that a woman is without cancer, yet it is actually present. (This is what happened to New York Times author Gail Collins, as she reported in a recent column on the controversy.)
2. False positives results: The mammogram indicates a problem, yet a subsequent biopsy (tissue sample) shows that there is no cancer present. A big relief-but the whole experience results in fear, stress, expense, and physical and emotional scarring.
3. Mammography involves x-rays and x-rays have been called the "complete carcinogen," because they can both initiate and promote cancer growth. A few years ago, researchers at Columbia University wrote: "There is evidence that low energy X rays as used in mammographic screening produce an increased biological risk per unit dose relative to higher energy photons. At low doses, the increased risk appears to be of a factor of 2….For older women, the benefit is still likely to outweigh the radiation risk. For women less than 50 years of age, however, this increase in the estimated radiation risk might indicate a somewhat later age than currently suggested, by about 5 to10 years, at which to recommend commencement of routine breast screening" (Brenner 2002).
4. Overdiagnosis of "pseudo-malignancies," i.e., the discovery of non-malignant abnormalities that would never progress to outright cancer. Finding pseudo-malignancies swells the ranks of "cancer survivors," swelling the ranks and coffers of various non-profit agencies. Adding pseudo-malignancies to real cancers also has the side effect of improving the alleged "cure rate" of the disease. That's because almost all of these people will be "cured" (albeit of a disease that they did not really have). But without mammograms these people would never have known they had a non-consequential slight abnormality. My favorite author on the topic is H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, and author of Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not, and Here's Why
In the past, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Radiology (ACR) all recommended annual mammography for all women over the age of 40. The statistic that was most commonly quoted is that by detecting breast cancer early, before it has become large enough to be clinically apparent as an obvious lump in the breast, mammography reduces the mortality rate from breast cancer by 20 to 30 percent. So fixed has this statistic become in the minds of women, the medical profession and the media that by repetition alone it has now attained the status of unimpeachable fact. A closer examination of the data yields a somewhat less certain picture. The benefits of mammography are much smaller than we've been led to believe.
Professor Samuel Epstein, MD, professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition has tirelessly drawn attention to the radiation risks of screening mammography, has pointed out that sobering fact that over a period of 10 years, a pre-menopausal woman undergoing annual mammograms receives almost half the dose of radiation that was measurable within a mile of the Hiroshima bomb epicenter. (Note: I am a board member of the CPC.)
I too have been a long-time skeptic on the benefits of routine mammography. In my book The Cancer Industry (published as the Cancer Syndrome in 1980) I wrote critically about this mass screening program. I thought it would do more harm than good. In particular, I wrote about the work of John Bailar, MD, editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and his early and vociferous opposition to the mammography program.
A few months ago I also published a Special Report on Mammography, Biopsy and the Detection of Breast Cancer. Here is what Joel Evans, MD, founder and director of The Center for Women's Health, Darien, CT, and assistant clinical professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York said about my report:
"Ralph Moss has written a scholarly and frightening treatise that is a 'must read' for both the general public and all health professionals. It has the capacity to transform our approach to breast cancer screening and diagnosis. It is a remarkable gift to the women of the world."
We are now offering this report for $9.95, half the usual price. To order our special mammography report, please click here.
--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
References
I highly recommend Prof. Aronowitz's excellent op-ed in the New York Times, "Addicted to Mammograms," Nov. 20, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20aronowitz.html
American Cancer Society statement on mammography:
http://tinyurl.com/yk8q8fu
Barbara Brenner and Breast Cancer Action's statement:
http://tinyurl.com/yhoqq68
Brenner DJ, Sawant SG, et al. Routine screening mammography: how important is the radiation-risk side of the benefit-risk equation? Int J Radiat Biol. 2002;78:1065-1067
National Cancer Institute newsletter:
http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/111709/page2
USPSTF position paper:
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full
HHS Secretary's statement:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/11/20091118a.html
Monday, November 23, 2009
Bali:crafted sea salt
From Wave to Crystal Grain
The process of making hand crafted sea salt.
The production of premium sea salt takes time and attention to detail.
Each small batch of sea salt requires weeks of hard panning and grading to produce the perfect grain.
Our quality is a testimonial to the artisan nature of this age-old craft.
Black sand beaches are raked smooth with handmade tools of bamboo and palm.
Copper vessels sprinkle seawater over the waiting beds. The seed of sea salt has been planted.
The equatorial sun vakes the sand into crisp flakes which are harvested in the cool of the evening. In the flakes of sand the salt had been preserved through evaporation.
Fresh water is poured over the black sand to create a pure and natural brine.
The brine is filtered and left to evaporate in traditional palm wood tables.
The resulting grains of salt are then rebrined and evaporated to ensure pure white sea salt of the highest quality.
Big Tree Farms(trademark)
BALI
Interested in learning more about our company?
e-mail us
saltmaker@bigtreebali.com
I bought one pack at Setiabudi Supermarket for 36,000 Rupiah.
The process of making hand crafted sea salt.
The production of premium sea salt takes time and attention to detail.
Each small batch of sea salt requires weeks of hard panning and grading to produce the perfect grain.
Our quality is a testimonial to the artisan nature of this age-old craft.
Black sand beaches are raked smooth with handmade tools of bamboo and palm.
Copper vessels sprinkle seawater over the waiting beds. The seed of sea salt has been planted.
The equatorial sun vakes the sand into crisp flakes which are harvested in the cool of the evening. In the flakes of sand the salt had been preserved through evaporation.
Fresh water is poured over the black sand to create a pure and natural brine.
The brine is filtered and left to evaporate in traditional palm wood tables.
The resulting grains of salt are then rebrined and evaporated to ensure pure white sea salt of the highest quality.
Big Tree Farms(trademark)
BALI
Interested in learning more about our company?
e-mail us
saltmaker@bigtreebali.com
I bought one pack at Setiabudi Supermarket for 36,000 Rupiah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
