The annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology ends today. Several studies reported at the meeting have made it into the news. One was yet another misbegotten outcome from the Women’s Health Initiative and another was on the ineffectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer.
The Women’s Health Initiative study reports that women taking conventional hormone replacement are at greater risk of dying from lung cancer. The risk isn’t much and was mostly associated with women who smoke. Duh! Or, as Layna said, “They pay people to do this?” You’ve heard enough on this show to know that the drugs used in the Women’s Health Initiative research are not identical to the sex hormones the body produces and that these are known to promote cancer. No mention is made of this in the news nor that knowledge that actual bioidentical hormones do not have this effect—in fact, they seem to have a salutary effect on cancer. So this study continues the long tradition of asking the wrong question.
A curious thing about the study was that while the lung cancer death rate was modestly greater for those using hormone-like drugs, the incidence of lung cancer was no different between women taking the drugs and those who weren’t. In other words, taking the drugs didn’t increase the risk of getting lung cancer but, once someone got lung cancer, her chances of survival got worse. No one seemed curious about what might explain that. It seems like an obvious question to ask.
In the other study, a common screening technique for ovarian cancer was found to have no effect at all on survival when ovarian cancer recurred. This as compared to taking action only in response to overt symptoms. A great deal of noise was made about how this should not in any way deter doctors and patients from screening for ovarian cancer in the first place. But doesn’t it seem like an obvious question to ask? Especially because of what happens to a patient’s life when cancer is found as a result of screening: an invasion of surgery, poisons, and radiation?
Two other studies that received far less press tell another story.
In one study, the benighted practice of cooking meat was found to have no effect on the risk of breast cancer. No matter how charred the meat, no matter how much meat a woman had in her diet, and no matter how high the exposure to byproducts believed to be provocative of cancer, there was virtually no difference in risk. What that tells me is that a healthy body is able to resist the effects of carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are produced when meat is cook.
In the second study, researchers in a very long-term project covering 25 years found that men who maintained greater muscle strength were at a much lower risk of cancer of any type. The researchers also found that, contrary to conventional myths, body size had no effect on cancer risk after adjusting for a man’s muscle strength. What this tells me is that the muscle growth stimulated by building and maintaining strength brings with it biochemistry that protects against growth that is out of control—that is, from cancer.
Both these studies point to the body’s capacity to take care of itself. They show profound and dramatic results. There are many studies like them and many scientists working from this perspective. Why then do you suppose the headlines go to cancer research that promotes technologies ignorant those capacities? Technologies that are, in essence, an invasion?
