New Vitamin D3 mouse study smells fishy

Millions of dollars are again being spent to scare the public away from taking effective level of vitamin D3 supplements, that can block the development of invasive breast cancer in U.S. women.

Last summer Big Pharma sponsored a Vitamin D3 report by experts, most of whom currently received significant income from pharmaceutical companies, that ignored twenty years of solid research on the many benefits enjoyed by Americans taking much much higher levels of vitamin D3. Using the Institute of Medicine, a pharmaceutical-industry funded organization, the July 2010 report urged Americans to limit their intake of Vitamin D3 to 1,000 IUs or less per day.

Now someone is paying big bucks to publicize a small mouse study out of Georgetown University Hospital, that mentions how high levels of vitamin D3… although clearly helpful in stopping most types of breast cancer, was not helpful for skinny mice who were “pre-destined” to develop one type of estrogen negative breast cancer. This.. after feeding the poor mice 15,000 IUs or more of vitamin D3 a day!

It will be important to see what leading Vitamin D3 researcher at University of California’s Moores Cancer Center or their education organization Grassroots Health, or the Vitamin D Council, or researchers at Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research or the well-respected Vitamin D researcher, Dr Michael Holick, at Boston University has to say about this latest publicity effort to limit Americans’ intake of this inexpensive food supplement that can help stop breast and colon cancer and many other conditions before they start. See Dr Cedric Garland’s video on how higher levels of vitamin D3 protects against these types of cancers in humans.

Remember… as more and more Americans use adequate levels of inexpensive Vitamin D3 supplements to protect ourselves from breast and colon cancers, the pharmaceutical companies lose billions of dollars each year in chemotherapy sales.

American Cancer Society Report is Misleading; younger women getting more triple negative, estrogen positive & HER2+ breast cancers

Women of childbearing age, in many states around the U.S. today, face historically high invasive breast cancer levels. The American Cancer Society’s (ACS’) recent study, published Feb 22, in the American Association for Cancer Research, is incorrect when it says breast cancer rates are not changing for younger women.

In Massachusetts, younger women (under 50), saw a 45% increase in invasive breast cancer between 1995-2007; younger women in Colorado saw a 27% increase between 1990-2008, and younger women in Florida saw a 40% increase between 1984-2008.

The American Cancer Society’s February, 2011 report doesn’t count the actual number of women diagnosed in each state; instead, it uses an estimate, based on a formula, based on 9% of the U.S. population.

To know the real story, we need to count every woman who is affected, and we need to have those numbers published for all of us to see and understand.

Contact you state cancer board and ask them how many younger women developed invasive breast cancers last year, compared to the past five or ten years. Also ask them, how many of these younger women were diagnosed with triple negative, HER2+ and estrogen receptor positive breast cancers.

We need this specific information, not estimates. Keeping women in the dark when it comes to these critical numbers, makes it impossible to measure any positive changes, as women try easy and healthy ways to stop breast cancer before it starts.

U. S. Breast Cancer Epidemic Hitting Young Moms and Other Women of Childbearing Age

In   2009, about 62,520 women of childbearing age in the United States were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer.  This is a whopping 41% increase from 2001, when approximately 44, 300 women of childbearing age were reportedly diagnosed with the disease, according to recent American Cancer Society statistics.

These younger American women are being hit with triple negative, HER2 positive and estrogen positive breast cancers; diseases  that usually maim, sometimes kill and often bankrupt a woman’s current and future financial situation.

In recent years young media leaders and celebrities have shared their personal breast cancer diagnoses, including Fox News political reporter Jennifer Griffin (triple negative); ABC’s Good Morning America host,  Robin Roberts (triple negative); National Public Radio’s Tavis Smiley Show Executive Producer,  Sheryl Flowers, who died from triple negative breast cancer in 2009 at the age of 42, folksinger Melissa Ethridge (HER2 positive) and film star, Christina Applegate.

Why is this new epidemic happening to our younger women? How can younger women help stop breast cancer from happening to them ever… or never again?

For more information on why younger women in the U.S. are facing this current breast cancer epidemic, and for specific ways each woman can help lower her risk of developing breast cancer ever… or never again, sign on to The Truth About Breast Cancer blog  http://www.thetruthaboutbreastcancer.com
visit   http://www.knowbreastcancer.net become a Facebook fan and Twitter.

Birth Control Pills Now Linked to Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Recent research out of Seattle  shows a disturbingly strong link between young  women (40 years and younger) who used oral contraceptives  and their tendency to develop triple negative breast cancer, a rapidly growing estrogen-negative type of the disease.

Among women (40 years and younger) the relative risk for triple-negative breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive use (of more than one year ) was 4.2. (95%confidence interval, 1.9-9.3)

This study, Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years,  involving over 1,000 women, led by Jessica M. Dolle, at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle,  and published in the academic journal, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention in April of last year, did not find a similar link between   other kinds of  breast cancer and the use of oral contraceptives in this  same  group of breast cancer patients.

( one page abstract/summary of study)

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.abstract

( full study: ten page PDF)

http://www.jillstanek.com/Abortion%20Breast%20Cancer%20Epid%20Bio%20Prev%202009.pdf

Most types of breast cancer seem to be  caused by a  cocktail of various ingredients that appear to be unique to each person, that  mixed together can create  a perfect toxic storm.

Triple Negative breast cancer strikes  younger women more often than older women, and strikes black women at double the rate of white women. Younger black women are currently the most at- risk population for developing this type of breast cancer.

Sadly 90+%  of the dollars earmarked for  triple negative breast cancer research,  by Susan G Komen for the Cure, by  the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation, by government and other private grant makers are only focused on developing  expensive drugs that can “find a cure”  for this disease.

Last week  a recent  market research report predicted that by 2018 a new breast cancer drug, BSI-201 will enjoy  $1.7 billion in worldwide sales, with special potential for the triple negative market.

http://www.drugstorenews.com/story.aspx?id=131607&menuid=345

For women fighting this disease, this is wonderful news as such drugs can be critical. But we also need  to figure out how to stop triple negative breast cancer before it starts... even if there is no $1.7 billion drug at the end of the rainbow.

Audre Lorde,  poet, lesbian, feminist leader,  African American and   author of The Cancer Journals, who  died  in 1992 after a fourteen-year struggle with breast cancer,   was one of the first to notice society’s interest in profit making, rather than in trying to stop  breast cancer before it starts.

…what would happen if an army of one-breasted women descended upon Congress and demanded that the use of carcinogenic, fat-stored hormones in beef-feed be outlawed?

Each year, about 30,000  women in the U.S.  are now being diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer and this number continues to grow.  Most of these women are younger than 40 and more than 15% of these young women are  black.

We need to ask  foundations and government agencies to fund Jessica Dolle and other cancer prevention researchers as they try to  understand more about what chemicals, foods and drugs are causing all of this triple negative.

Meanwhile, do not expect your birth control pack  to mention Dolle’s recent research linking birth control drugs to triple negative breast cancer; in fact do not expect the American Cancer Society or even most major breast cancer foundations to breathe a word of  Dolle’s 2009 study.

Birth control pills and breast cancer drugs are both multi-billion dollar a year markets. The   pharmaceutical companies that sell these drugs also give many millions of dollars each year to the American Cancer Society, Komen and other.  Few organizations, I suppose,  want to bite the hands that feed them.

From a practical, personal  point of view, younger women who want to continue using birth control  pills should  counterbalance their risk of developing triple negative by getting a Vitamin D3 blood test.. and taking 2,000 IUs or more of Vitamin D3 supplements every day until your blood test shows you have a level of 60-80 ng/ml of vitamin D3. New research shows that this level of vitamin D3  should protect a huge majority of all women against developing all types of breast cancer.

For more  ideas on how to help lower your risk of developing any type of breast cancer, at any age, see  Know Breast Cancer’s 7 Easy Ways at www.knowbreastcancer.net