Friday, January 6, 2012

Axis-line-distance technique preferred method to evaluate perioperative scoliosis treatment

When compared with the Cobb method, the axis-line-distance technique is the preferred method for evaluating perioperative scoliosis treatment, according to recent research.

Researchers found a weak to moderate correlation with the Cobb method, where the axis-line-distance technique (ALDT) showed a good to excellent correlation in measuring scoliosis patients during bracing therapy or surgery and in subsequent follow-ups, according to the abstract.

Two independent radiologists calculated the correction rate after either consecutive bracing therapy or surgery of 57 patients with scoliosis using both methods based on 171 perioperative X-rays, according to the abstract. The calculations were done before surgery, during the bracing therapy or surgery and after the final follow-up.

The ADLT showed no significant difference between either of the radiologists when calculating the correction rate or rate of correction loss during or after treatment. The ALDT measured the preoperative lateral deviations of the apical vertebrae as 31 ± 14 mm and also during and after treatment, which were 16 mm ± 8 mm and 20 mm ± 8 mm, respectively.

In contrast, the researchers differed significantly in their intraoperative calculations when using the Cobb method, though their calculation of the correction rate and rate of correction loss were not affected. Cobb angles were calculated at 34° ± 14°, 19° ± 7° and 22° ± 6° at preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative time periods, according to the abstract.

About Dr Kevin Lau

Dr Kevin Lau DC is the founder of Health In Your Hands, a series of tools for Scoliosis prevention and treatment. The set includes his book Your Plan for Natural Scoliosis Prevention and Treatment, a companion Scoliosis Exercises for Prevention and Correction DVD and the innovative new iPhone application ScolioTrack. Dr Kevin Lau D.C. is a graduate in Doctor of Chiropractic from RMIT University in Melbourne Australia and Masters in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health in USA. In 2006 I was awarded the "Best Health-care Provider Awards" by the largest Newspaper publication in Singapore on October 18 2006 as well as being interviewed on Primetime Channel News Asia as well as other TV and Radio. For more information on Dr Kevin Lau, watch his interviews or get a free sneak peek of his book, go to: http://www.hiyh.info.

When compared with the Cobb method, the axis-line-distance technique is the preferred method for evaluating perioperative scoliosis treatment, according to recent research.

About Dr Kevin Lau

Diet Might Help Those Immobilized by Knee Osteoarthritis

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 21 (HealthDay News) -- A diet consisting of eight weeks of protein shakes and soup followed by adding low-calorie, high-protein foods can help people with knee osteoarthritis lose weight, which may lessen joint pain and improve their quality of life, a new study finds.

This diet might also help people whose obesity makes it impossible to exercise, the researchers added.

"Obese individuals with knee osteoarthritis should be urged to lose weight," said lead researcherRobin Christensen, head of the Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit at The Parker Institute at Copenhagen University Hospital at Frederiksberg in Denmark.

Samantha Heller, a dietitian and clinical nutrition coordinator at the Center for Cancer Care at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Conn., said that "the question this study brings up is whether the participants can maintain the weight loss they achieved on a formula-based, very low-calorie, supervised diet, in real life, with real food."

For the study, Christensen's team followed 175 obese people suffering from knee osteoarthritis. During the first eight weeks, the participants had only the formula diet, called the Cambridge Weight Plan, which includes soups and shakes and was limited to 800 calories a day. The participants stayed on this diet for eight weeks.

Following this diet, the patients lost a lot of weight, but also increased their bone mineral density, Christensen said.

During the next eight weeks, the participants continued the diet, but increased their calories to 1,200 a day with one formula meal replaced by low-fat, high-protein foods plus some carbohydrates.

Dieticians supervised the participants, Christensen noted.

During the first eight weeks, people lost an average of 26 pounds, according to the study.

"This is achievable for all people with knee osteoarthritis, because 91 percent of all the people who started the trial completed 16 weeks of the trial, so it's feasible," he said.

The findings appear in the Dec. 21 issue of the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

While the study's main funding came from two Norwegian foundations, it was funded in part by the makers of the Cambridge Weight Plan. Study co-author Dr. Anthony Leeds is the medical director of the program. The company paid for the dieticians and donated their products, Christensen said.

The diets included the recommended daily intake of amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals, the researchers said. It also increased levels of vitamin D, which is essential for bone growth. Levels of vitamin B12 were also boosted, to improve nervous-system functioning of the nervous system and blood production.

Losing weight helped more than 60 percent of the participants reduce their knee pain and improved their ability to walk, the researchers found.

Osteoarthritis results in degradation of joints causing joint pain, tenderness, stiffness and locking. According to Christensen, many weight-loss diets decrease bone mineral density, which can weaken bones, especially among people who can't exercise.

The researchers have followed these patients for a year to see if they have maintained their weight loss and whether their osteoarthritis has improved, Christensen said. "The results are looking good," he said.

Maintaining weight loss over time is the challenge, Heller said.

Without learning strategies for managing life's daily obstacle course of stressors, frustrations, temptations and social interactions, it is highly likely that people who lose weight on a formula diet will regain the weight they lost when they stop the program, she said.

"Losing weight is difficult at best, and for people who are overweight or obese the struggle is complex and involves environmental, physiological, psychological and health issues," Heller said.

"People who are motivated to make lifestyle changes should work with trained, accredited, health professionals such as a registered dietitian and their physician," she added.

More information

For more on osteoarthritis, visit the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

About Dr Kevin Lau

This diet might also help people whose obesity makes it impossible to exercise, the researchers added.

Following this diet, the patients lost a lot of weight, but also increased their bone mineral density, Christensen said.

During the next eight weeks, the participants continued the diet, but increased their calories to 1,200 a day with one formula meal replaced by low-fat, high-protein foods plus some carbohydrates.

Dieticians supervised the participants, Christensen noted.

During the first eight weeks, people lost an average of 26 pounds, according to the study.

"This is achievable for all people with knee osteoarthritis, because 91 percent of all the people who started the trial completed 16 weeks of the trial, so it's feasible," he said.

The findings appear in the Dec. 21 issue of the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Losing weight helped more than 60 percent of the participants reduce their knee pain and improved their ability to walk, the researchers found.

Maintaining weight loss over time is the challenge, Heller said.

"Losing weight is difficult at best, and for people who are overweight or obese the struggle is complex and involves environmental, physiological, psychological and health issues," Heller said.

"People who are motivated to make lifestyle changes should work with trained, accredited, health professionals such as a registered dietitian and their physician," she added.

More information

For more on osteoarthritis, visit the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

About Dr Kevin Lau

No Deaths from Vitamins America's Largest Database Confirms Supplement Safety

(OMNS, Dec 28, 2011) There was not even one death caused by a vitamin supplement in 2010, according to the most recent information collected by the U.S. National Poison Data System.

The new 203-page annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, published online athttp://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2010%20NPDS%20Annual%20Report.pdf, shows zero deaths from multiple vitamins; zero deaths from any of the B vitamins; zero deaths from vitamins A, C, D, or E; and zero deaths from any other vitamin.

Additionally, there were no deaths whatsoever from any amino acid or dietary mineral supplement.

Three people died from non-supplement mineral poisoning: two from medical use of sodium and one from non-supplemental iron. On page 131, the AAPCC report specifically indicates that the iron fatality was not from a nutritional supplement.

Fifty-seven poison centers provide coast-to-coast data for the National Poison Data System, "one of the few real-time national surveillance systems in existence, providing a model public health surveillance system for all types of exposures, public health event identification, resilience response and situational awareness tracking."

Well over half of the U.S. population takes daily nutritional supplements. Even if each of those people took only one single tablet daily, that makes 165,000,000 individual doses per day, for a total of over 60 billion doses annually. Since many persons take far more than just one single vitamin or mineral tablet, actual consumption is considerably higher, and the safety of nutritional supplements is all the more remarkable.

Over 60 billion doses of vitamin and mineral supplements per year in the USA, and not a single fatality. Not one.

If vitamin and mineral supplements are allegedly so "dangerous," as the FDA and news media so often claim, then where are the bodies?

Reference:

Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Dart RC. 2010 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS): 28th Annual Report. The full text article is available for free download athttp://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2010%20NPDS%20Annual%20Report.pdf

The data mentioned above are found in Table 22B. Mineral data on page 131; vitamin data on pages 137-139 .

About Dr Kevin Lau

(OMNS, Dec 28, 2011) There was not even one death caused by a vitamin supplement in 2010, according to the most recent information collected by the U.S. National Poison Data System.

Additionally, there were no deaths whatsoever from any amino acid or dietary mineral supplement.

Over 60 billion doses of vitamin and mineral supplements per year in the USA, and not a single fatality. Not one.

If vitamin and mineral supplements are allegedly so "dangerous," as the FDA and news media so often claim, then where are the bodies?

Reference:

The data mentioned above are found in Table 22B. Mineral data on page 131; vitamin data on pages 137-139 .

About Dr Kevin Lau

Almost 68% of Women over 40 Have Fallen for This Trap

By Dr. Mercola

Mammograms are widely promoted as a "life-saving" tool for helping women detect breast cancer in its earliest stages.
The message has so thoroughly saturated the public mind that nearly 68 percent of women over the age of 40 have had a mammogram in the past two years -- and most of these women believe doing so will help them avoid dying from breast cancer.
Unfortunately, women have largely been sold a false bill of goods, as the science tells a very different story about the ability of mammograms to save lives.

In Most Cases, Mammograms Don't Save Lives

Considering that mammograms are regarded as the "gold standard" for breast cancer prevention in the conventional medical establishment, you may haveassumed they save lives.
Well, researchers from Dartmouth College had a novel idea -- they decided to determine how often lives were actually saved by mammography screening vs. breast cancer industry generated statistics and their marketing propaganda.
And what they found should make even the staunchest mammography proponent give pause.
Using breast cancer data from The National Cancer Institute and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers calculated a 50-year-old woman's likelihood of developing breast cancer in the next 10 years, the odds the cancer would be detected by mammography, and her risk of dying from the cancer over 20 years.
They found that a mammogram has, at best, only a 13 percent probability of saving her life, and that the probability may actually be as low as 3 percent. No matter what analyses they used, including considering women of different ages, the probability of a mammogram saving a life remained below 25 percent.
Researchers concluded:
"Most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their life saved by screening. They are instead either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or overdiagnosed."
This bears repeating:
Mammograms often diagnose tumors that may never threaten a woman's life. They also often result in false positives that lead to over-treatment, i.e. misdiagnosed women often undergo unnecessary mastectomies, lumpectomies, radiation treatments and chemotherapy, which can have a devastating effect on both the quality and length of their lives.

Up to 50 Percent of Breast Cancer "Diagnoses" are Not Actually Cancer

As Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com, explained in a recent article, between 30-50% of new breast cancer diagnoses obtained through mammography screenings are classified as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), which may not be cancer at all.
DCIS refers to the abnormal growth of cells within the milk ducts of the breast forming a calcified lesion commonly between 1-1.5 cm in diameter, and is considered non-invasive or "stage zero breast cancer" -- with some experts arguing for its complete re-classification as a non-cancerous condition.
Many conventional physicians view DCIS as "pre-cancerous" and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer; however the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, with the weight of evidence suggesting it is significantly less than 50% -- perhaps as low as 2-4%.
Amazingly, there are no diagnostic standards for DCIS, and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise.
Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at The University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times:
"There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin."
The New York Times also reported on several other concerning findings about the frequency of misdiagnosis of DCIS:
A 2006 study funded by Susan G. Komen for the Cure estimated that in 90,000 cases where women were diagnosed with DCIS or invasive breast cancer, they either did not have the disease or they received an unnecessary treatment due to a pathologist's error.
A 2002 study at Northwestern University Medical Center found that nearly 8 percent of 340 breast cancer cases "had errors serious enough to change plans for surgery."
Dr. Lagios, a pathologist at St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco, reviewed nearly 600 breast cases in 2007 and 2008 and found discrepancies in 141 of them.
The Times stated, "Dr. Lagios says that based on his experience, microscopic core needle biopsies of low-grade D.C.I.S. and benign lesions, called atypical ductal hyperplasia, or A.D.H., may be misread 20 percent of the time."
So, if you are a woman considering going in for a mammogram, you need to be aware of the fact that mammograms often detect breast abnormalities (lesions) that -- while being diagnosed as "early cancer" and treated as if aggressive, invasive cancers -- will often never progress to actual cancer if left to run their natural course.
In fact, groundbreaking new research published in The Lancet Oncology shows that many actually invasive breast cancersspontaneously regress when left underdiagnosed and untreated. The authors of the study concluded:
We believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.
When you consider that mammography screenings often result in the diagnosis of what may be an inherently benign breast lesion, DCIS, and that the diagnosis itself may come down to a "coin's flip" worth of certainty – and then, you add in the fact that even so-called 'invasive breast cancer' may "spontaneously regress," the entire justification for mammography screening seems to fall apart.
After all, is exposing the breast to carcinogenic radiation once a year really a wise decision, given that the screening process itself is so obviously inaccurate and misleading? Also, considering that self-examination, examination by a trained professional and screening with radiation-free thermography provide sound alternatives, it is important that women at least be provided with an informed choice.

Annual Mammograms Increase Your Risk of False Positives, Unnecessary Biopsies

Research funded by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that getting an annual mammogram leads to an increased risk of false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies compared to getting a mammogram every other year.
After analyzing more than 386,000 mammograms from close to 170,000 women over a 10-year period, the study found 61 percent of those who received annual mammograms would be called back in for a follow-up, at least once, when in fact they did not have cancer. An additional 7-9 percent would receive an unnecessary biopsy. This is compared to 42 percent and 5-6 percent of the women, respectively, who had a mammogram every other year.
Furthermore, the research showed that annual mammograms were not more effective at identifying late-stage cancers compared to the every-other-year group. The overall results led lead researcher Rebecca Hubbard to say that false positives are simply "part of the process of screening mammography."
Unfortunately, this also means many women are exposed to increased stress as well as potentially invasive and potentially harmful treatments for absolutely no reason.
Even still, The American Cancer Society (ACS) advises women age 40 and older to undergo a mammogram screening every year, and continue to do so for as long as they are in good health, despite updated guidelines set forth by The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which state that women in their 40s should NOT get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer.
ACS' role in the promotion of mammography is far from altruistic, of course, as they have numerous ties to the mammography industryitself.

Mammograms Expose You to Serious Cancer-Causing Radiation

False positives, lack of life-saving results and overdiagnosis aside, there's yet another reason why you may want to carefully analyze your decision to receive a mammogram, and that is the serious health risks associated with diagnostic radiation exposure.
A mammogram uses ionizing radiation which, in and of itself, can contribute to the development of breast cancer. In fact, mammograms expose your body to doses of radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk.
What is so confusing is that the type of X-rays used in mammography are called "low-energy," radiating at around 30 Peak kilovoltage (kVp) vs. 200 kVp and above for "high-energy" radiation.
Commonsense would seem to dictate that "low-energy" means lower harm. Indeed, It has become conventional wisdom within radiobiology and radiology that the "lower energy" rays used in x-ray mammography are far less dangerous to DNA than those associated with the spectrum of radiation released by atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – so-called "high energy" X-rays. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
An accumulating body of clinical evidence indicates that the 30 kVp range of "low-energy" radiation used in breast screenings is up to 400% more damaging to the DNA – and therefore 400% more carcinogenic – than the "high energy" radiation it is often compared to.

Making Sense of All the Radiation Numbers

What this means is a potential sea change for the breast screening industry, which will no longer be able to justify its already horrible track record of "early detection" and "saving lives," nor its industry-friendly and highly skewed risk-benefit analyses -- based as they are on a completely inaccurate radiation risk model which minimizes the risk at the expense of women's health.
Keep in mind that The Cochrane Database Review determined in 2009 that for every woman whose life is prolonged through mammography screening diagnosis 10 women are "unnecessarily treated," i.e. their life is shortened.
What is so tragic is that this does not take into account the fact that the "low-energy" radiation being used in x-ray mammography, is planting the genetic seed for invasive breast cancer in countless women who would not have otherwise developed cancer, had they not been exposed to the radiation through screening in the first place.
It is already commonly accepted by the medical establishment that x-ray mammography screenings do cause breast cancer – they just do not realize, or are not willing to admit, how severe the problem is.
For example, research published in The Journal Radiology showed that annual mammography screening of 100,000 women from age 40-55, and biennial screening after that to age 74, would cause 86 radiation-induced cancers, including 11 fatalities and 136 life years lost. If we adjust for the new radiation risk model, required by acknowledging the difference between "low" and "high" energy radiation, we must multiply the harms caused by a factor of four to get a more realistic estimate of the iatrogenic damage: namely, 344 radiation-induced cancers, including 44 fatalities and 544 life years lost.
And remember, research has already been performed clearly showing that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over getting the examination alone.
So it comes down to an assessment of risk versus benefit, and even the mainstream press is beginning to report researchers' sentiments that:
"It's generally a really close call."
As Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, told TIME:
"Women need to understand their trade-offs here. The reason to be screened isn't because you've heard a lot of survivor stories. Some of those women have not benefited [from screening]."
And, as was revealed by a study in the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, breast cancer screening using x-ray mammography led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent!

What Really Will Reduce Your Risk of Dying from Breast Cancer?

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among U.S. women, and one in eight will be diagnosed with it during their lifetime. Unfortunately, the aggressive push for mammography has many women equating actual preventive measures (e.g. lifestyle, diet and nutrition changes, as well as avoiding chemical exposures) with annual breast screenings, which do nothing to prevent cancer, and may actually contribute to it.
Unfortunately, medical organizations like The American Cancer Society do very little to spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place.
A healthy diet, regular physical exercise, and an effective way to manage your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer.
The following lifestyle strategies will also help to further lower your risk:
Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth.
Optimize your vitamin D level. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 60-80 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available.
Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities like Peak Fitness. It’s important to lose excess weight because estrogen, a hormone produced excessively in fat tissue, may trigger and/or feed breast cancer.
Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
Breastfeed exclusively for at least six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin levels drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation.

About Dr Kevin Lau

By Dr. Mercola

Mammograms are widely promoted as a "life-saving" tool for helping women detect breast cancer in its earliest stages.
The message has so thoroughly saturated the public mind that nearly 68 percent of women over the age of 40 have had a mammogram in the past two years -- and most of these women believe doing so will help them avoid dying from breast cancer.
Unfortunately, women have largely been sold a false bill of goods, as the science tells a very different story about the ability of mammograms to save lives.

In Most Cases, Mammograms Don't Save Lives

Considering that mammograms are regarded as the "gold standard" for breast cancer prevention in the conventional medical establishment, you may haveassumed they save lives.
Well, researchers from Dartmouth College had a novel idea -- they decided to determine how often lives were actually saved by mammography screening vs. breast cancer industry generated statistics and their marketing propaganda.
And what they found should make even the staunchest mammography proponent give pause.
Using breast cancer data from The National Cancer Institute and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers calculated a 50-year-old woman's likelihood of developing breast cancer in the next 10 years, the odds the cancer would be detected by mammography, and her risk of dying from the cancer over 20 years.
They found that a mammogram has, at best, only a 13 percent probability of saving her life, and that the probability may actually be as low as 3 percent. No matter what analyses they used, including considering women of different ages, the probability of a mammogram saving a life remained below 25 percent.
Researchers concluded:
"Most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their life saved by screening. They are instead either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or overdiagnosed."
This bears repeating:
Mammograms often diagnose tumors that may never threaten a woman's life. They also often result in false positives that lead to over-treatment, i.e. misdiagnosed women often undergo unnecessary mastectomies, lumpectomies, radiation treatments and chemotherapy, which can have a devastating effect on both the quality and length of their lives.

Up to 50 Percent of Breast Cancer "Diagnoses" are Not Actually Cancer

As Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com, explained in a recent article, between 30-50% of new breast cancer diagnoses obtained through mammography screenings are classified as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), which may not be cancer at all.
DCIS refers to the abnormal growth of cells within the milk ducts of the breast forming a calcified lesion commonly between 1-1.5 cm in diameter, and is considered non-invasive or "stage zero breast cancer" -- with some experts arguing for its complete re-classification as a non-cancerous condition.
Many conventional physicians view DCIS as "pre-cancerous" and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer; however the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, with the weight of evidence suggesting it is significantly less than 50% -- perhaps as low as 2-4%.
Amazingly, there are no diagnostic standards for DCIS, and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise.
Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at The University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times:
"There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin."
The New York Times also reported on several other concerning findings about the frequency of misdiagnosis of DCIS:
A 2006 study funded by Susan G. Komen for the Cure estimated that in 90,000 cases where women were diagnosed with DCIS or invasive breast cancer, they either did not have the disease or they received an unnecessary treatment due to a pathologist's error.
A 2002 study at Northwestern University Medical Center found that nearly 8 percent of 340 breast cancer cases "had errors serious enough to change plans for surgery."
Dr. Lagios, a pathologist at St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco, reviewed nearly 600 breast cases in 2007 and 2008 and found discrepancies in 141 of them.
The Times stated, "Dr. Lagios says that based on his experience, microscopic core needle biopsies of low-grade D.C.I.S. and benign lesions, called atypical ductal hyperplasia, or A.D.H., may be misread 20 percent of the time."
So, if you are a woman considering going in for a mammogram, you need to be aware of the fact that mammograms often detect breast abnormalities (lesions) that -- while being diagnosed as "early cancer" and treated as if aggressive, invasive cancers -- will often never progress to actual cancer if left to run their natural course.
In fact, groundbreaking new research published in The Lancet Oncology shows that many actually invasive breast cancersspontaneously regress when left underdiagnosed and untreated. The authors of the study concluded:
We believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.
When you consider that mammography screenings often result in the diagnosis of what may be an inherently benign breast lesion, DCIS, and that the diagnosis itself may come down to a "coin's flip" worth of certainty – and then, you add in the fact that even so-called 'invasive breast cancer' may "spontaneously regress," the entire justification for mammography screening seems to fall apart.
After all, is exposing the breast to carcinogenic radiation once a year really a wise decision, given that the screening process itself is so obviously inaccurate and misleading? Also, considering that self-examination, examination by a trained professional and screening with radiation-free thermography provide sound alternatives, it is important that women at least be provided with an informed choice.

Annual Mammograms Increase Your Risk of False Positives, Unnecessary Biopsies

Research funded by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that getting an annual mammogram leads to an increased risk of false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies compared to getting a mammogram every other year.
After analyzing more than 386,000 mammograms from close to 170,000 women over a 10-year period, the study found 61 percent of those who received annual mammograms would be called back in for a follow-up, at least once, when in fact they did not have cancer. An additional 7-9 percent would receive an unnecessary biopsy. This is compared to 42 percent and 5-6 percent of the women, respectively, who had a mammogram every other year.
Furthermore, the research showed that annual mammograms were not more effective at identifying late-stage cancers compared to the every-other-year group. The overall results led lead researcher Rebecca Hubbard to say that false positives are simply "part of the process of screening mammography."
Unfortunately, this also means many women are exposed to increased stress as well as potentially invasive and potentially harmful treatments for absolutely no reason.
Even still, The American Cancer Society (ACS) advises women age 40 and older to undergo a mammogram screening every year, and continue to do so for as long as they are in good health, despite updated guidelines set forth by The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which state that women in their 40s should NOT get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer.
ACS' role in the promotion of mammography is far from altruistic, of course, as they have numerous ties to the mammography industryitself.

Mammograms Expose You to Serious Cancer-Causing Radiation

False positives, lack of life-saving results and overdiagnosis aside, there's yet another reason why you may want to carefully analyze your decision to receive a mammogram, and that is the serious health risks associated with diagnostic radiation exposure.
A mammogram uses ionizing radiation which, in and of itself, can contribute to the development of breast cancer. In fact, mammograms expose your body to doses of radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk.
What is so confusing is that the type of X-rays used in mammography are called "low-energy," radiating at around 30 Peak kilovoltage (kVp) vs. 200 kVp and above for "high-energy" radiation.
Commonsense would seem to dictate that "low-energy" means lower harm. Indeed, It has become conventional wisdom within radiobiology and radiology that the "lower energy" rays used in x-ray mammography are far less dangerous to DNA than those associated with the spectrum of radiation released by atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – so-called "high energy" X-rays. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
An accumulating body of clinical evidence indicates that the 30 kVp range of "low-energy" radiation used in breast screenings is up to 400% more damaging to the DNA – and therefore 400% more carcinogenic – than the "high energy" radiation it is often compared to.

Making Sense of All the Radiation Numbers

What this means is a potential sea change for the breast screening industry, which will no longer be able to justify its already horrible track record of "early detection" and "saving lives," nor its industry-friendly and highly skewed risk-benefit analyses -- based as they are on a completely inaccurate radiation risk model which minimizes the risk at the expense of women's health.
Keep in mind that The Cochrane Database Review determined in 2009 that for every woman whose life is prolonged through mammography screening diagnosis 10 women are "unnecessarily treated," i.e. their life is shortened.
What is so tragic is that this does not take into account the fact that the "low-energy" radiation being used in x-ray mammography, is planting the genetic seed for invasive breast cancer in countless women who would not have otherwise developed cancer, had they not been exposed to the radiation through screening in the first place.
It is already commonly accepted by the medical establishment that x-ray mammography screenings do cause breast cancer – they just do not realize, or are not willing to admit, how severe the problem is.
For example, research published in The Journal Radiology showed that annual mammography screening of 100,000 women from age 40-55, and biennial screening after that to age 74, would cause 86 radiation-induced cancers, including 11 fatalities and 136 life years lost. If we adjust for the new radiation risk model, required by acknowledging the difference between "low" and "high" energy radiation, we must multiply the harms caused by a factor of four to get a more realistic estimate of the iatrogenic damage: namely, 344 radiation-induced cancers, including 44 fatalities and 544 life years lost.
And remember, research has already been performed clearly showing that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over getting the examination alone.
So it comes down to an assessment of risk versus benefit, and even the mainstream press is beginning to report researchers' sentiments that:
"It's generally a really close call."
As Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, told TIME:
"Women need to understand their trade-offs here. The reason to be screened isn't because you've heard a lot of survivor stories. Some of those women have not benefited [from screening]."
And, as was revealed by a study in the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, breast cancer screening using x-ray mammography led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent!

What Really Will Reduce Your Risk of Dying from Breast Cancer?

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among U.S. women, and one in eight will be diagnosed with it during their lifetime. Unfortunately, the aggressive push for mammography has many women equating actual preventive measures (e.g. lifestyle, diet and nutrition changes, as well as avoiding chemical exposures) with annual breast screenings, which do nothing to prevent cancer, and may actually contribute to it.
Unfortunately, medical organizations like The American Cancer Society do very little to spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place.
A healthy diet, regular physical exercise, and an effective way to manage your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer.
The following lifestyle strategies will also help to further lower your risk:
Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth.
Optimize your vitamin D level. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 60-80 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available.
Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities like Peak Fitness. It’s important to lose excess weight because estrogen, a hormone produced excessively in fat tissue, may trigger and/or feed breast cancer.
Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
Breastfeed exclusively for at least six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin levels drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation.

About Dr Kevin Lau

Treatment for feline leukemia virus

Cattori V, Weibel B and Lutz H. Inhibition of feline leukemia virus replication by the integrase inhibitor raltegravir. Vet Microbiol. 2011; 152: 165-8.

Feline leukemia virus is a retrovirus of cats that can cause cancer, anemia and immunosuppression. Currently, no effective treatment for FeLV infection exists. These researchers investigated the usefulness of an anti-retroviral drug called raltegrevir that was developed for treatment of HIV in humans. The researchers tested the drug in a laboratory setting for potential toxicity to feline cells, as well as the ability to inhibit the replication of FeLV in these cells. It was found that, at least in cell culture, this drug inhibited virus replication and did not cause toxic changes to the feline cells. The researchers speculate that this drug could be used to reduce virus replication in FeLV-infected cats to the point that their own immune system could eliminate the virus, effectively curing the infection. Many more studies are needed, but this research offers a promising first step. [MK]

Related articles:
Hartmann K. Clinical aspects of feline immunodeficiency and feline leukemia virus infection. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2011; 143: 190-201.

More on cat health:
Winn Feline Foundation Library
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Methicillin-resistant infections in pets

Heller, J. (2011). "Meticillin-resistant staphylococci in companion animals." Veterinary Record 169(3): 68-69.

The emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in companion animals is a concern for human health. One organism of concern in human medicine is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This bacteria is commonly found in people, but only rarely in dogs and cats. Dogs and cats, on the other hand, are infected most commonly with Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP). Investigation of dogs and cats in Portugal, where MRSA is a problem, discovered that pets were found to harbor MSRP relatively commonly. These bacteria had significant antibiotic resistance, and when wounds or other internal tissues are infected opportunistically, treatment can be difficult. There is potential for MRSP in pets to be passed to humans, though the extent of this occurrence remains unknown. Further research is needed to define the role, if any, of MRSP in human infections. [MK]

Related articles:
Ferreira, J. P., K. L. Anderson, et al. (2011). "Transmission of MRSA between Companion Animals and Infected Human Patients Presenting to Outpatient Medical Care Facilities." PLoS ONE 6(11): e26978.

More on cat health:
Winn Feline Foundation Library
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

27-Year-Old Adelaide Woman Dies Weighing 12Kg with scoliosis, Parents Arrested for Murder

Note from Dr Kevin Lau:

This is a sad story I read in the newspaper the other day and certainly harks back to my understanding of how important nutrition is to the development of not only the spine for a child but their health it self. Even though most parents of scoliosis sufferers are not neglecting their children health, in this modern society we living in we are malnourished by the modern diet that we are living on. Please read Your Plan for Natural Scoliosis Correction and Prevention and feed your children well.

By Arlene Paredes | December 21, 2011 12:38 PM EST

A 27-year-old disabled woman died at home weighing only 12kg, prompting the police to arrest her parents for murder by neglect, as they may have deliberately left her uncared for at their home.

The parents, both teachers, were arrested by police Monday morning at their home in the suburb of Brighton North, southwest of Adelaide, reported the Herald Sun.

View Full Image

REUTERS/Ismail Taxta
A woman holds her malnourished child on arrival at Banadir hospital in Mogadishu July 7, 2011. The United Nations says 2.8 million people in Somalia need emergency aid after the worst drought in 60 years hit the Horn of Africa region. In the worst-hit areas, one in three children is suffering from malnutrition.

The death was reported on March 19, and Adelaide detectives started an investigation as it seemed the woman had wasted away to weigh just 12kg at the time of her death.

The woman was reportedly bedridden, and she suffered a number of disabilities, including scoliosis.

The family's neighbours had told The Adelaide Advertiser they did not know the woman lived at the address.

The woman's parents, aged 56 and 55, lived with at least one other relative at their home, the Herald noted.

The couple will appear in court on Tuesday to face police allegations that they deliberately caused the death of their daughter by neglecting to adequately feed and care for her.

To contact the editor, e-mail:editor@ibtimes.com

About Dr Kevin Lau

Note from Dr Kevin Lau:

By Arlene Paredes | December 21, 2011 12:38 PM EST

A 27-year-old disabled woman died at home weighing only 12kg, prompting the police to arrest her parents for murder by neglect, as they may have deliberately left her uncared for at their home.

The parents, both teachers, were arrested by police Monday morning at their home in the suburb of Brighton North, southwest of Adelaide, reported the Herald Sun.

View Full Image

The death was reported on March 19, and Adelaide detectives started an investigation as it seemed the woman had wasted away to weigh just 12kg at the time of her death.

The woman was reportedly bedridden, and she suffered a number of disabilities, including scoliosis.

The family's neighbours had told The Adelaide Advertiser they did not know the woman lived at the address.

The woman's parents, aged 56 and 55, lived with at least one other relative at their home, the Herald noted.

The couple will appear in court on Tuesday to face police allegations that they deliberately caused the death of their daughter by neglecting to adequately feed and care for her.

To contact the editor, e-mail:editor@ibtimes.com

Health News

Pages

Friday, January 6, 2012

Axis-line-distance technique preferred method to evaluate perioperative scoliosis treatment

About Dr Kevin Lau

About Dr Kevin Lau

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Diet Might Help Those Immobilized by Knee Osteoarthritis

About Dr Kevin Lau

About Dr Kevin Lau

No Deaths from Vitamins America's Largest Database Confirms Supplement Safety

Reference:

About Dr Kevin Lau

Reference:

About Dr Kevin Lau

Almost 68% of Women over 40 Have Fallen for This Trap

In Most Cases, Mammograms Don't Save Lives

Up to 50 Percent of Breast Cancer "Diagnoses" are Not Actually Cancer

Annual Mammograms Increase Your Risk of False Positives, Unnecessary Biopsies

Mammograms Expose You to Serious Cancer-Causing Radiation

Making Sense of All the Radiation Numbers

What Really Will Reduce Your Risk of Dying from Breast Cancer?

About Dr Kevin Lau

In Most Cases, Mammograms Don't Save Lives

Up to 50 Percent of Breast Cancer "Diagnoses" are Not Actually Cancer

Annual Mammograms Increase Your Risk of False Positives, Unnecessary Biopsies

Mammograms Expose You to Serious Cancer-Causing Radiation

Making Sense of All the Radiation Numbers

What Really Will Reduce Your Risk of Dying from Breast Cancer?

About Dr Kevin Lau

Treatment for feline leukemia virus

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Methicillin-resistant infections in pets

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

27-Year-Old Adelaide Woman Dies Weighing 12Kg with scoliosis, Parents Arrested for Murder

About Dr Kevin Lau

About Dr Kevin Lau