Green Tea Changes Estrogen Metabolism and Breast Cancer Risk
Saturday, March 9th 2013 at 5:00 am
Case Adams, Naturopath
New research from the U.S. National Institutes of Health shows that the biochemicals in green tea change a women’s estrogen metabolism, revealing at least one of its mechanisms for reducing the risk of breast cancer.
For the rest of this article, GO HERE.
My current pet peeve with the allopathic model is that it equates “early detection” with “prevention.” Then the following article crossed my desk, and I may have a new pet peeve: the manufacture of a disease that is actually a natural phenomenon of aging….And we all do want strong, healthy bones, just not the way the allopathic model says is “best.”
HIGH BONE MINERAL DENSITY AND BREASR CANCER
One of the most important facts about bone mineral density, conspicuously absent from discussion, is that having higher-than-normal bone density in middle-aged and older women actually INCREASES their risk of breast cancer by 200-300%, and this is according to research published in some of the world’s most well-respected and authoritative journals, e.g. Lancet, JAMA, NCI. (see citations below).
While it has been known for at least fifteen years that high bone density profoundly increases the risk of breast cancer — and particularly malignant breast cancer — the issue has been given little to no attention, likely because it contradicts the propaganda expounded by mainstream woman’s health advocacy organizations. Breast cancer awareness programs focus on x-ray based breast screenings as a form of “early detection,” and the National Osteoporosis Foundation’s entire platform is based on expounding the belief that increasing bone mineral density for osteoporosis prevention translates into improved quality and length of life for women.
The research, however, is not going away, and eventually these organizations will have to acknowledge it, or risk losing credibility.
To read all of this article, GO HERE.
Now here is a grab bag of topics!
Today I played kitchen apothecary and made several fresh herbal tinctures: chickweed, nettles, alfalfa and horsetail. For herbs that are 80 to 90 % water, these are remarkably tough plants (well, the chickweed is from my greenhouse and is rather delicate). I use a Cuisinart to chop up the herbs, and then add certified organic grain alcohol, distilled water and natural source vegetable glycerin to make the “menstruum” or the liquid that sits (or macerates) for weeks or months, and is finally strained to become a fresh herb tincture. What I have learned over 2 dozen years of this process is that each plant has a preferred (so to speak) ratio of herb to liquid, and alcohol percentage so that the tincture has optimal healing properties…..the only problem being that the “experts” (including naturopaths, herbalists and chemists) differ (sometimes greatly) in their opinions of what those numbers should be. Enter art, intuition, and whose theory makes the most sense…
The other day my renter rescued a pig. Yup, a wee pig was loose in Questa, and suffering from sunburn. So she’s now under the trees in a double dog crate healing before heading south to a farm where she will live (and NOT become food). I fed her watermelon rinds, and pigs really do grunt (rather sweetly) as they eat (which they do rather delicately).
And did you ever wonder why so many cancers that are treated with chemo and radiation come back so fiercely? Turns out there are cancer stem cells, that are usually not killed by those two treatments.
Following on the heels of recent revelations that x-ray mammography may be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new article titled, “Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells From Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells,” published in the journal Cancer July 1st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report that radiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy.
To read the entire article, go HERE. It is not for the faint of heart…..
When I was 50 years old (ten years ago in 2001), I asked my mother (who was 73 at the time), “when you were 50, (back in 1978) how many friends did you know who had breast cancer or had died from breast cancer? Her answer was “none.” And my mom was a very active member of her church, Girl Scouts, and other circles in her community; ie, she knew a lot of women. I, at that time, already knew over a dozen woman who had breast cancer, and now 10 years later, several of those friends have died, and the number diagnosed just keeps growing.
If you look at most of the hype surrounding Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it is NOT about the possible toxic causes of breast cancer, or even that we may be experiencing a higher rate of cancer. So much of the focus is on mammograms, and if you go HERE you can read some cutting edge research by Sayer Gi of www.GreenMedInfo, including these 2 critical pieces of information:
A recent study and editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine indicated that x-ray mammography screening may “save” only 1 person for every 2,500 screened. Among the 2,500 screened at least 1,000 will have a false alarm, 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy and 5 or more would become treated for abnormal finds that would never become fatal, i.e. their lives will be shortened due to medication/surgical/stress-induced adverse effects.
Given these findings X-ray mammography may be far more effective at generating increased numbers of breast cancer diagnoses than in “preventing” malignancy and mortality associated with the disease. To the contrary, a growing body of clinical evidence indicates that the “low energy” x-rays used in breast screenings are up to 500% more carcinogenic than previously assumed and upon which current radiation risk models that favor mass breast screenings with ionizing diagnostic technologies find justification.
This is NOT an indictment of any woman’s choice to get a mammogram, or do whatever treatment she deems necessary if she has breast cancer. What I am bringing into the light is the possibility we may have been “misled.”