A Carcinogen in My Coffee

I feel like this is another step in the plan for Big Brother to take over our lives and regulate us to death. Seriously. Or maybe its just another way for the lawyers to get rich over stupid lawsuits.

There is a lawsuit making its way through the Los Angeles court system that wants companies who make or sell coffee to warn consumers that there is a potential carcinogen created in coffee brewing that could cause cancer. As part of Proposition 65 in 1986, California businesses need to warn customers that there could be a risk involved in consumption or use of a product. So the lawsuit claims that customers need to be warned about coffee consumption. When I first read this article, I asked 'what are they thinking?'

First of all, there are plenty of other things in this world that could cause us cancer - lets start with sunshine, drinking water, inhaling air, eating, and more.

Second, we do not need more regulation that would increase the cost of doing business.

Third, there is no proof that the chemical, Acrylamide, involved is even a carcinogen.

So as someone who has wondered, from time to time second to second, as to why I have been so lucky to get cancer twice, I really do not to waste my time trying to figure out if I drank a 'bad' cup of coffee at some point. I have plenty of other things to worry about - like where is my cell phone or what is that new pain in my back. I don't even live in California and it really just irritates me that money is being wasted on this.

Obviously the lawsuit was filed by someone who is not like me and doesn't have any dependence on their morning cup of joe.

I would seriously like to take the money wasted in this lawsuit and especially the legal fees, be put into something useful, like a cure for cancer.

Eek! Hair Dye Causes Breast Cancer!

How many women color their hair? I think most of my friends do. I don't and I am unusual among the women I know.

But, brace yourselves, the news is now going to be filled with the warning that coloring your hair with anything but natural dyes will cause breast cancer and you will die very quickly. Why? Because a researcher in the UK said so:

"Frequently dying your hair has been linked to an increased risk of developing breast cancer.

According to a study by London surgeon Kefah Mokbel, women who colour their hair have a 14 per cent rise in rates of breast cancer.

Professor Mokbel, who works at the Princess Grace Hospital in Marylebone, London, advises that women dye their hair no more than two to five times a year."
But here is the kicker:

“Although further work is required to confirm our results, our findings suggest that exposure to hair dyes may contribute to breast cancer risk.”

Professor Mokbel has also made clear that the link is merely a correlation: “The positive association between the use of hair dyes and breast cancer risk does not represent evidence of a cause-effect relationship,” he wrote on Facebook.

You need to note the word 'CORRELATION' before jumping to any conclusions. And then he opted to clarify more on Twitter (that ever so helpful 140 character way of communicating scientific and political information).

In addition, there was a Finnish study which also found a link between hair dye and breast cancer risk. But that researcher points out more information is needed because maybe women who use hair dye are also more likely to use make up which has some kind of chemical in it which could be more likely to cause breast cancer.

"Sanna Heikkinen from the Finnish Cancer Registry said separate Finnish research found a link between women who use hair dye and likelihood of developing breast cancer.

“We did observe a statistical association between hair dye use and risk of breast cancer in our study,” she said.

But like Mokbel, Heikkinen stressed that scientists aren’t certain of a cause-effect relationship though.

“It is not possible to confirm a true causal connection,” she said. “It might be, for example, that women who use hair dyes also use other cosmetics more than women who reported never using hair dyes.”"

So please use common sense and don't jump on the hair dye will kill you bandwagon which you will find far and wide in the news in the upcoming weeks. 

Damn The Mutations, Full Speed Ahead

So now they want to tell us that cancer is mostly the result of genetic mutations, as opposed to other factors. I'm not sure how much of this I want to believe but I'll just say 'damn the mutations, full speed ahead'.

Cancer causes are supposedly:

• 66% - mutations when cells replace themselves
• 29% -  environmental factors
• 5% - hereditary factors

So can we stop blaming our parents and our bad diets, and just assume none of it is our fault? Probably not.

As a normal part of life, cells divide and multiply and little mistakes happen all the time. Its just that sometimes they turn into cancer....

"Lifestyle factors still matter for cancer prevention.

Just one mutation is not sufficient to cause cancer -- typically three or more mutations must occur, Tomasetti noted. If, say, your cells miscopy DNA and so cause two random mutations, a third mutation is still needed. Obesity, smoking, lack of exercise and poor eating habits might supply that necessary third gene defect that tips your body into a disease state."

So go eat a salad, quit smoking, and go to the gym. And for those of us who were already doing all of those and still got cancer, can we please just blame bad luck and not blame ourselves?

Some Kinds of Cheese Can Cause Breast Cancer - Really?

Okay, I am done. I do not care what about any more news about what can or can't cause breast cancer. I am done. The latest info is that consumption some kinds of cheese can cause breast cancer. That would be American, cheddar, and cream cheese. I never eat American cheese - because its basically 'fake food' - but I probably make up for that in the amount of cheddar and cream cheese that I eat.

But that's it. I am done. I quit smoking because it causes cancer (and it smells). But that's it. I no longer care about what might cause cancer. If I listened to all the advice that is out there, I would be living in a cave existing on organic food and distilled water, staying out of the sun and away from any thing that could be carcinogenic.

I love cheese. I love good cheddars, I love a toasted onion bagel with cream cheese. I like the smelly soft cheeses. I love blue cheese. I love feta cheese, especially on a Greek salad. I want to learn how to make my own cheese. I am not going to stop eating cheese. And that's it.

Why don't they just tell us that breathing causes cancer and we can all hold our breath for the rest of our lives.

Talcum powder and other safe ingredients

I have seen some crass ads recently about 'if you used talcum powder and got cancer, you need a lawyer'. I had no idea what they were talking about it. Until I saw an article about how Johnson & Johnson has lost yet another lawsuit regarding talcum powder.

Supposedly talc is a carcinogen and if you used J&J baby powder it could have caused your ovarian cancer. J&J of course claims that it is not. But now lawyers are involved and it is in the hands of the courts. Since J&J has now lost two cases, it does not look good for them.

This brings me to the issue of supposedly safe ingredients that turn out to be really bad for you. If you think about it, this has been going on for eons. Think about what used to be in so called 'patent' medicines. Everything thing under the sun. Many of them were found to be harmful or even fatal.

Now in modern times, the lawyers run everything.

But the harm has been done. I used to use J&J baby powder regularly. Is that why I got cancer twice? I give up. I have no idea why I am so 'healthy' but I will assume talcum powder is not what did me in.

The Dark Side of Anti-Oxidants

I read this article this morning on the dark side of anti-oxidants and was very surprised. I have heard all the benefits of anti-oxidants and why it is important to eat them as part of a healthy diet. Some medications are made with antioxidants. Many people rush out and get fresh fruit and vegetables specifically for their antioxidants and benefits.

"There is no question that antioxidants, such as those in fruits and vegetables and other foods, neutralize molecules called free radicals that can damage DNA. That has led to assertions that antioxidants can prevent cancer, since DNA damage can turn normal cells into malignant ones. But studies of whether antioxidant supplements (pills, not foods) can prevent cancer have largely disappointed."

So that last sentence tells us something. A hint that maybe anti-oxidants aren't quite as good as previously thought.

"Because free radicals might also attack cancer cells, scientists are studying whether antioxidants might allow tumors to flourish. The new research, in Science Translational Medicine, found that they can. When scientists exposed lab dishes of human cancer cells (liver, breast, colon, ovarian) to the diabetes drugs sitagliptin (sold by Merck as Januvia) and saxagliptin (AstraZeneca’s Onglyza), the cells migrated more. And when nine mice with human tumors were given either of the drugs, the cells metastasized more and invaded far-flung tissue...."

Did you read that right? Yes you did! The previously thought wonderful anti-oxidants appear to help metastasize cancer! So if you have cancer, your cancer will spread faster with help from the anti-oxidants. Nice! They are off my diet for now.

But the writers add that they did not cause cancer, just that they helped it spread. And this is a mouse test which means that it may not be the same for humans. And more research is needed.

So I am not jumping to any conclusions here. I know its only a mouse test but these results do not make me happy. 

Luck and Cancer

Back at the beginning of the year I blogged about how a cancer diagnosis was supposedly just bad luck. This made me cranky because: IF IT'S CANCER IT'S NOT LUCK.

Now someone has refuted this study and says its not bad luck its environmental and lifestyle factors that cause cancers. Is this supposed to make me feel better? Did I cause my cancer by making bad lifestyle decisions and hanging out in 'bad' places? If so, please tell me where I went wrong.

I never lived in a 'bad' place. I grew up in the suburbs, played outside a lot, kept myself fairly physically fit, and ate fairly well.

I don't have a lot of the bad habits many Americans do. I don't drink soda. I don't go to fast food restaurants. I like home made food which is full of vegetables instead of eating in restaurants. Now I go to the gym three times a week because of my limitations but I went for a daily walk for more than ten years. I also would get a lot of exercise regularly between hiking, skiing, snow shoeing, and more.

I do admit to drinking alcohol, eating red meat, and enjoying dessert once in a while. I did smoke cigarettes for many years, maybe five cigarettes a day. I may have inhaled once in a while as well.

So what did I do wrong? What could I have done better so my health wasn't so bad? Now I'm really cranky. Grrr.

Medical research and me

Finally a study for me, sort of. In a recent study, they found that women with breast cancer were more likely to be diagnosed with thyroid cancer in the five years following their initial diagnosis. And vice versa, with thyroid cancer, you are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer.

So I am not really in the study because my cancers were 26 years apart. But its nice to get some logic for my medical crap.

The more complicated explanation is:

"The authors wrote that those second primary tumors detected within 5 years of the initial primary diagnosis show “favorable histopathological findings and prognosis,” especially in TC patients subsequently diagnosed with BC, and thus close monitoring for BC may be beneficial.

“Although the increased incidence appears to be principally due to increased detection rates, the greater expression of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor in BC in patients with co-existing TC suggests that a specific molecular pathogenesis might underlie this association,” they concluded."

So whatever a 'histopathological finding' is and 'molecular pathogenesis' might mean, there may be some kind of reasoning behind my cancers.

As a patient, I hear about studies and clinical trials and more and they never seem to relate to me very much. Because my medical history always is different from everyone else. Its nice to have a study that could explain some of my medical stuff.

I have always been the patient who was too young for cancer, not likely to have rheumatoid, etc. But since I got all them anyway, even though I 'wasn't supposed to', I often am outside all normal parameters.

Brilliance at work

In recent years there has been a huge controversy about Santa Monica CA high school being full of PCBs. The result has been multiple teachers and staff have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Remediation has taken place in the worst areas.

Except when a brilliant group stepped in and remediated the wrong office of the school. Really? How did they manage that? To their benefit I will say the office they decontaminated was full of PCBs but it was an unused office. Not the one that is used daily.

I have been following the Santa Monica Unified School District PCB story as 3 teachers have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 14 more have thyroid disease which is presumed to be a result of the contamination. The elementary school I attended was recently torn down and rebuilt because of PCB contamination. And 8 years after leaving that school I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer? Coincidence? Who knows.

But brilliant idiots at work here.

Its Movie Time!

Tonight is the premier of "Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies" on PBS at 9 pm. The book was long and the movie actually is in three 2-hour parts airing through Wednesday night. I blogged about this a while back, I also read the book a couple of years ago. During the past week, I have also watched several trailers as well. Now the Tivo is set up to record it as it is on too late for me.

I am looking forward to this movie, or mini-series. But I do have a few reservations:

• It was a long book and while it was fairly entertaining, it was long. It wasn't a book to sit down and read on the beach. It took some thinking and digesting. I would read a few chapters and ponder them for a few days or a week and then read more.
• Although I reassured some in my other blog post, it does concern me that it is it is about cancer, which is not the most cheerful of topics. And sometimes I am just not in the mood to watch cancer-cancer-cancer.
• Sometimes I have problems watching other people going through their cancer journeys. I have found some stories to be too drama filled, or sad, or have me wondering 'what were these people thinking?' when they or a family member were diagnosed with cancer.
• If it is six hours of doctors talking about medical breakthroughs, I am not sure I will make it through. 
• There is no way I am going to stay up (with a cold, on a weeknight, three nights in a row) until 11 pm.

So it may take  me a few days or a week or so to watch the entire six hours. I do hope to watch it and enjoy it. I will probably blog about it again when I am done.

PCBs, Cancer and Schools

Back in early February, I blogged about being interviewed for an article on the PCB connection and cancer. Schools and other buildings built before 1979 often used PCBs in sealants and all sorts of other parts of the finishes.

Now the article is out and my part is not included which is no big deal. But the article provides a lot of good information on the problem with PCBs and the resulting health issues.

PCBs are a real problem in homes, schools, commercial and industrial buildings nationally. Many cancers are attributed to environmental factors and it would not surprise me if PCBs are one of them.

I went to one of the best school systems in the country but my elementary school was full of PCBs. Other than giving me a good education, did it give me bad health? That question cannot be answered and I cannot waste time on worrying about the causes and blame. I need to move forward but I hope the EPA and other entities take notice and work to remove them and other toxins from our lives.

Is there a PCB connection?

One of the many questions I have about my health is 'why?'. As in why the hell do I have all these ailments? You cannot imagine how many little conversations and convoluted theories I have had with myself as to why my health has been in the toilet for so long.

I mean there is no history of breast or thyroid cancer in my family. My mother and grandfather have rheumatoid arthritis but I was told that I would probably not have RA but possibly other autoimmune disease such as lupus, etc. But no, I got them anyway. And I have the eternal question 'why?'.

One theory is PCBs. Research has shown that PCBs are carcinogenic. It has also shown PCBs can influence the immune system and cause hormonal issues due to estrogen mimicking. But is this really true? Could there be an impact by PCB exposure that could possibly have contributed to my health?

Then I found out the elementary school I attended for six years was full of PCBs and was torn down as because of the health impact it could have. Then yesterday I learned that Malibu High School was shown to also have PCBs and three teachers whose classrooms had the highest levels of PCBs were diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

One of the reasons I learned some things about PCBs yesterday is I spoke with a reporter who went to the same elementary school with me who is writing an article for TakePart.com on PCBs in schools and related health issues. It should be out in a couple of months. I am sure our conversation was a very small portion of the article, if any, but I am very interested to see what he says.

So where does that leave me? Could there be a cause here? Or am I grasping at straws? Still? The proverbial why question eternally unanswered. Or maybe not.

And so what is the cause of breast cancer?

That is the unanswered question. Tons of research has been done on treating and curing breast cancer but not as much has been done on why 90% of breast cancer patients have no family history. That's right, you hear all those conversations about BRCA genes and hereditary breast cancer and the Angelina Jolie effect but those only account for 10% of all breast cancer cases.

"Five eminent Boston researchers will officially join forces Thursday to tackle one of the most perplexing questions about breast cancer: Why do so many people with no family history of the disease get it?

The researchers will examine whether common man-made chemicals are responsible for the disease, which increasingly strikes men and women.

In 2014, breast cancer will be the second-most-diagnosed form of cancer and the third- deadliest form of the disease, according to the National Cancer Institute. But unlike with some other cancers, the vast majority of breast cancer diagnoses — more than 90 percent — cannot be traced to a hereditary cause, the institute said."

This is the kind of research I want to see. I am one of the 90% - there is no family history on either side for me. One of my mother's second cousins had breast cancer back in the 1970s and since my diagnosis, one of my aunts was diagnosed with early stage breast cancer at age 76. Both of my grandfather's died of cancer - one with gall bladder cancer and the other with prostate. My father was diagnosed with lymphoma in his 80s. This is not a breast cancer family history.

So why me? The eternal question of all cancer patients. I dislike the articles that tell us what we did wrong. I want to know what factors might have caused my cancers.

"“The bottom line is that there is not a lot of coordinated research around the environment and breast cancer,” she said. “We felt that in order to have some kind of strong impact on the field of environmental causes of breast cancer we needed to put together a large project.”

Most cancer research is dedicated to developing drugs or cures, Sherr said. But the Boston consortium’s ultimate goal is finding a way to prevent the cancer from ever taking hold."

They have a $5 million three year grant to help solve this riddle. I hope they get more funding to continue their research. Read more here.

Cancer causes

Let's see how I do on this one.  The American Association for Cancer Research just announced the preventable causes of cancer in the US.

1. Tobacco - I quit that a few years back
2. Cancer made me fat. I wasn't fat until breast cancer treatment.
3. I have no idea about cancer causing pathogens.
4. I go to the gym 3x each week and get 1 hour of cardio each time followed by 30 minutes of weights, machines, and stretching.
5. Fruits and vegetables every day. A minimum of two pieces of fruit by noon followed by salad and/or green vegetables with dinner. 
6. I have never been to a tanning salon but do go to the beach. I don't remember the last time I got a sunburn.

So let's go back to the 'why me?' question.... No let's not. Anyhow more discussion on this can be found here. I'm doing the best I can.

Fifty Years Ago today - January 11, 1964

The lid came off the tobacco industry and the surgeon general announced that smoking causes cancer.  Before I jump right in, I'll give you a little background on this.

Back in high school, the precocious 14 year old I was wrote a rebellious English paper on the history of  drug use in the United States. I did research and learned about the opium trade with China and that marijuana was not made illegal until the 1930s. Tobacco had become a cash crop and built up the antebellum southern states. The government stepped in an d started regulating the snake oil salesmen remedies and their contents which led to the beginning of the regulations.

But tobacco smoking in the first half of the 20th century, was thought of as enervating and youthful. At first it was scandalous for women to smoke but then came socially acceptable. Post WWII advertising included the health benefits of smoking. In the medical world smoking was debated as to whether it was health or not. At the beginning of the movie Forrest Gump, the doctor is smoking as he examines the young Forrest - which would not have been unusual at all.

The medical world debated the benefits or carcinogens of tobacco smoking through the 1950's. The first change happened when Readers Digest published in December 1952 a widely read article titled "Cancer by the Carton". This difficult to read copy is only copy of this article I could find but its not long and worth the read. It was written by Roy Norr and condensed from a much longer article in the Christian Herald - of which I can find no trace.

Earlier this week,the Boston Globe provided a detailed article on the impact of the Surgeon General's final report released fifty years ago today and the changes that have happened. Long but definitely worth the read to understand the impact of smoking on American Society. Have you been to a garage sale recently of an older family? How many ashtrays are being sold off? We moved into our 1959 built house and found tucked in a corner coupons for cigarettes dating from the 1970s.

Vintage 1949, Ronald Reagan was famously shown in an ad saying he sends cigarettes to all his friends for the holidays.

Now another recent article talks about how many millions of lives have been saved due to tobacco control. Other benefits of tobacco control include smoke free buildings, restaurants, parks and more.

This was a huge step in reducing cancer rates - especially lung cancer. Take a deep breath of fresh air today and remember how it used to be with smoking everywhere. Yes I am a former smoker and appreciate the non-smoking world now.

A newsflash: Your behavior can impact the likelihood of developing cancer.

How astounding! I never would have thought. Ha ha.
This video is actually from 2009 but it still applies today. What we did 30, 40 or 50 years ago could cause cancers to show up in our bodies today. Or more precisely, may have given us a greater risk of developing cancer now. 

A much newer article talks about how young women in college may not realize that their behaviors in college, smoking, drinking, lack of sleep, little exercise, could increase their risk of developing breast cancer. (Let me note that this article is one of those press releases for some medical thingymabob so its not like I read it in the Lancet. But a little common sense allows us to realize that they do make a valid point - that thousands of others have made previously but its the handiest resource I have.)

So what is our takeaway from all of this? From the point of view of someone who was diagnosed with cancer at age 19, you  have two choices:

1. You can live under a rock and not have fun, eat healthy, exercise, blah, blah, blah. Basically you end up with a boring life with no adventures.
2. You can take that advice and make promises to yourself to not play in traffic but to live a healthy life and have a hell of a lot of fun while you are at it. 

I went for plan #2 but I did get cancer again. But damn I have had a good life.

We do need to remember while something was cool for a while, sooner or later its going to catch up to us. So we need to remember the advice that what we did in the past, will show up in our bodies later on.

Cholesterol and breast cancer

All these new studies, or at least one which was noticed by the media who are in the process of over-hyping it, tell us that cholesterol 'fuels' breast cancer. Well, woop-de-doo I say. This is one of those things that I figure I can ignore.

My doctors have said my good cholesterol was nice and high and my bad cholesterol was nice and low with a total number that was just about right. But now they say my cholesterol could have helped cause my breast cancer.

I am confused. For decades we are told low bad cholesterol for heart health, blah, blah, blah. Now its fueling breast cancer? What are we supposed to do, give up eating? Or is this going to be one of those things where next week they tell us it doesn't fuel breast cancer?

Wine is good or bad. Coffee is good or bad. Chocolate is good or bad. And the list goes on.

Argh!

Another Article I Obviously Missed

How to Fight Off Cancer:

1. Eat right
2. Exercise
3. Manage Stress
4. Get Enough Sleep

Can I just say better late than never?

Or, can I have a do-over?

Or, I'll get right on that?

DNA mapping

Hmmm.... I like this concept of mapping the DNA of  cancer patients. Actually the UK's National Health Service has announced a plan to map the DNA of 100,00 patients with rare diseases and cancers. (And the immediate comments on the article are how did the British government come up with the 100 million pounds to pay for this during the time of austerity.)

Politics and financing (and squabbling) aside I think this is a good idea. I have always wondered why I have been lucky enough to have cancer twice while the rest of my family remains healthy. If my DNA would tell something about it, I would welcome the opportunity to learn more about me.

Actually I would not be surprised if a lot of the secrets of us less than healthy people could be discovered in our DNA. Now that the price has dropped significantly to between 5 and 10 thousand pounds, it is getting within the range of affordability (come on, work with me if some cancer drugs can cost upwards of $100,000/year this is affordable). Maybe a little more money should be spent on looking at why some people seem to get the ailments. (I could be their poster child.) Instead of just throwing money at a cure.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Combating Cancer Cell Communication

One of the latest theories in cancer research is that its not about the cancer cells themselves but its about the environment in which they live - the tumor micro environment - where all these cells, proteins, and whatchamacallits hangout and communicate. How they communicate, how evil cancer cells trick good cells into doing bad things - like turning into cancer cells or creating blood supplies for tumors - and how those triggers could be altered to make them kill off the bad guys (cancer cells).

There is a lot of science involved but if you read this article slowly with a cup of coffee and then think about it, it makes a lot of sense and shows a lot of progress in what is going on in cancer research.

This kind of research, while complicated for the layperson to understand at first, has been going on for a while. I heard Dr Susan Love speak a couple of years ago and she was talking about it then. The tumor micro environment is the area of interest.

What is in the 'neighborhood' of the tumor that made regular cells turn into cancer cells? If you take the average kid and put them in a 'good' neighborhood chances are they will be a good kid. But if you take the average kid and put them in a 'bad' neighborhood, full of gangs and drugs, how long will they stay good? The chances are greater they will be pulled into the 'bad' forces in neighborhood. Is this true in the tumor's neighborhood? Are there bad influences there?

This area of research is very interesting to me and think that this is called progress.