Showing posts with label ovarian cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ovarian cancer. Show all posts

Monday, August 4, 2014

The hair dye/cancer connection OVARIAN AND LEUKEMIA



The hair dye/cancer connection
20 February, 2013
By Staff Writer
NYR Natural News
A recent newspaper article proclaimed that hair dyes are a cancer risk.
The ‘study’, which was reported on in the UK’s Daily Mail,was funded by a company about to launch its own brand of  ‘safer’ hair dyes and was not all that impressive – but the link between hair dye use and cancer is one that has been studied for years and should not be ignored.
In a culture obsessed with youth and beauty, grey hairs are the enemy and today’s hair dyes are marketed as being as good for your self-esteem as they are for your hair. But underneath the advertising hype is a disturbing amount of data linking regular hair dye use with a range of different cancers.
First you have to damage your hair…
To achieve luscious shades of chestnut brown, coppery red, mahogany or black, permanent hair dyes must first chemically damage your hair. Under a microscope, the cuticle of human hair looks like overlapping fish scales. The pigment molecules that give hair its colour are stored in the cortex of the hair, beneath this scaly layer. Before the colour can penetrate the hair shaft, the cuticle, must be ‘opened’ so that chemicals can get in to the natural pigment molecules.
Permanent hair dyes consist of a two components – colour and developer. The colour component usually contains a range of synthetic dyes and intermediates that such as ammonia, diaminobenzenes, phenylenediamines, resorcinol and phenols.
Mixed with the developer – usually hydrogen peroxide – the colour component begins to oxidise to produce a particular colour. The ammonia in the mix causes the hair shaft to swell, forcing the cuticles apart and allowing the mix to deposit the new colour underneath. Ammonia free formulas may smell nicer, but they simply replace ammonia with another chemical that does the same job.
The process of oxidation takes time, which is why the formula usually looks one colour when you first apply it and another when your rinse it off.

Harmful colours

Toxic ingredients like diaminotoulene, diaminoanisole were removed from hair dye products some 20 years ago but it is likely that past use of dyes containing these chemicals is a cause of some cases of breast cancer today. But a quick label scan most hair dyes reveals that they contain chemicals, most commonlyphenylenediamines which are just as harmful. The type of phenylenediamine used depends on the end colour, thus:
·         para-phenylenediamine (black)
·         para-toluenediamine (brown)
·         ortho-phenylenediamine (Brown)
·         para-aminophenol (reddish brown)
·         ortho-aminophenol (light brown)
Other hair dye ingredients have also proven carcinogenic in at least one animal species including: 4-chloro-m-phenylenediamine, 2,4-toluenediamine, 2-nitro-p-phenylenediamine and 4-amino-2-nitrophenol. Regulation varies, but some of these have now been banned in hair colourants in some countries. Coal tar dyes have been also found to cause cancer in laboratory animals, yet no warning is required for these either.
These ingredients and their variations (usually HCl, hydrochloride or sulphates e.g. para-phenylenediamine sulfate) are powerful irritants and have been implicated in severe allergic reactions (phenylenediamines are also mutagenic (causing DNA mutations and fetal abnormalities in animal studies). Other irritant ingredients include hydrogen peroxide, resorcinol and 1-naphthol. Hair dye sold in the European Union containing any of these ingredients needs to carry a warning:
“Can cause an allergic reaction. Do not use to colour eyelashes or eyebrows.”
In the US products containing 4-methoxy-m-phenylenediamine (4-MMPD, 2,4-diaminoanisole) must also carry a warning:
“Contains an ingredient that can penetrate your skin and has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”
No such warning is required for this ingredient in the EU.
In the US the long  commercial use of many hair dye chemicals, especially coal tars, has allowed manufacturers to successfully argue that they cannot be withdrawn from the marketplace.
In the EU in 2007 over 100 hair dye substances suspected of toxicity were banned pending documentation supporting their safety for use. By 2009 44 of these had been put back on the market. In 2010 a further 179 hair colouring chemicals were banned within the EU.  But many of banned colours were less commonly used substances and plenty of toxins remain in our hair dyes and of course long-term users will have been exposed to those colourants that were eventually deemed dangerous and taken off the market.
Other hair dye ingredients such as chlorides are highly irritating to the mucus membranes. Chloride fumes can irritate the lungs and eyes and cause burns or rashes on the skin.
Hair colours also contain several penetration enhancers known the aid the absorption of other toxic chemicals into the bloodstream. These include can include propylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, fatty acids such as oleic, palmiticand lauric acid and isopropyl alcohol to name but a few.
More cancer
Both human and animal studies show that the body rapidly absorbs the carcinogens and other chemicals in permanent and semi-permanent dyes through the skin during the more then 30 minutes that dyes remain on the scalp. So if you use permanent, semi-permanent, shampoo-in or temporary hair colours you are increasing your risk of developing cancer.
Problems with hair dyes were first noted in the late 1970s when several studies found links between the use of hair dyes and breast cancer. In 1976 one study reported that 87 of 100 breast cancer patients had been long-term hair dye users.
In 1979, another study found a significant relationship between the frequency and duration of hair dye use and breast cancer. Women who started dying their hair at age 20 had twice the risk of 40-year-olds. Those at greatest risk were the 50 to 79 year olds who had been dying their hair for years, suggesting that the cancer takes years to develop.
A year later another study found that women who dye their hair to change its colour, rather than masking greyness, were at a threefold risk of developing breast cancer. The same study found that women with a history of benign breast disease had a much greater risk of developing breast cancer if they died their hair.
In addition, people who work as hairdressers are at increased risk. One 2001 study found that those who had worked for 10 or more years as hairdressers or barbers had a fivefold risk of bladder cancer compared to the general population.
Research continued and in the early 1990s Japanese and Scandinavian studies also linked hair dye use with leukaemia and ovarian cancer.
An early Harvard study suggested that compared to women who had never dyed their hair, women who dyed their hair one to four times a year had a 70% increased risk for ovarian cancer. Women who used hair dye five times or more per year had twice the risk of developing ovarian cancer compared to women who never used hair dye.
A recent review found what it called “alarming data” pointing toward a link between hair-dye use in pregnancy and the development of several childhood malignancies in offspring. The authors recommended that “Concerned pregnant women should avoid all hair colouring”.
But also more rare cancers
But it is the link with otherwise uncommon cancers that causes the greatest concern, and may well be the best evidence of hair dye toxicity.
Evidence suggests, for example, that if you use hair dye you may be increasing your risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma anywhere from twoto four times over a non-user. Some researchers even believe that hair dyes may account for as many as 20% of all cases of NHL in women.
Other data from the 1992  National Cancer Institute (NCI) found that women who used permanent hair dyes had a 50% higher risk for developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and an 80% higher risk of multiple myeloma than non-users.
In this study other cancer risk factors, such as family history of cancer, cigarette smoking, and herbicide or pesticide exposure, did not change the risks calculated for hair dye use and the risk increased with the number of years of use and for women using black, brown and red colouring products.
In 2008 Yale researchers found that women who used hair dye 6-9 times a year were at 60% greater risk of developing lymphocytic leukaemia.
As a general rule, the darker the shade of the dye, this higher the risk of breast cancer; thus women who use black, dark brown or red dyes are at the greatest risk.
Men at risk too
While women were once the main users of hair dyes, use among men has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and with it the incidence of rare cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute hair dye use is responsible fora 90% increased risk of multiple myeloma among men.
This result echoed that of an earlier NCI study which showed that men who had used hair dyes had a two-fold risk for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and almost double the risk of leukaemia.
No problem?
Hair dye manufacturers continue to defend the safety of their products, suggesting that any risk is ‘minimal’. It is true that some studies dispute the cancer risk. One which involved 1500 men and women hair dye users in San Francisco found no increased incidence of NHL.
In fairness, there are problems with studies into hair dye and cancer risk. Some involve small numbers of women working in the cosmetic industry. Historically this group of women are exposed to the known carcinogens in hair dyes – diaminotoulene, diaminoanisole, and phenylenediamines, coal tar dyes, the dioxane found in detergents, solvents, nitrosamines and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives – in much greater concentration than the rest of us.
Another difficulty is that there are large variations in the chemical content of hair dyes. This means that when an association is found it difficult to know which ingredient or mix of ingredients is the culprit. In addition, cancer is a slow-developing disease in humans. By the time it surfaces, it is difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that one particular exposure was the cause.
However, the weight of the evidence, clearly suggests a need for caution.
Try this instead
You can tint your hair with natural substances like henna, but if you want to permanently dye your hair there aren’t really any ‘natural’ alternatives. Look closely at the labels of  ‘natural’ hair colours and you will find the same harsh colours – with a bit of added natural vegetable oil. If you intend to keep dying your hair consider some damage limitation:
·         Read the label. If you dye your hair use the safer alternatives that are currently on the market. These should not contain phenylenediamines (though many so-called natural hair colours do). Never buy products that are in any way unclear about their ingredients.
·         Read the label again. This time look for dyes. Avoid products which use colours like Acid Orange 87, Solvent Brown 44, Acid Blue 168 and Acid Violet 73 these are also carcinogenic.
·         Don’t dye your hair too often. Leave the maximum amount of time in between applications.
·         Leave hair dyes on the head for the minimum required time.
·         Highlights and lowlights, professionally done, can give hair depth without a massive change in colour and may be a better way to deal with emerging greys (at least for a while!).
·         Hair colourants made entirely from plant-based ingredients are the safest choice however these are few and far between.  Pure herbal hair dyes will not dramatically change the colour of your hair, they are not permanent and don’t cover grey well. They will need to be left in the hair significantly longer then synthetic dyes, but have the advantage of conditioning the hair while they colour.
·         Go natural. In a world of look-alike bleach blondes and unnaturally red redheads you’ll probably be the standout.



Monday, May 12, 2014

FALSE LOGIC: When Treating Cancer Is Not an Option

This article has so much false logic, narrow minded logic and many options not mentioned or considered! Why? Personal comments from 25 years of testing cancer patients reveals a much different view than the article presents, are written in red.

When Treating Cancer Is Not an Option
 NOVEMBER 19, 2012, 12:01 AM
Jane Brody on health and aging.
When my husband learned he had advanced lung cancer, he didn’t even want to speak to an oncologist about chemotherapy.He saw no point in treatment that could not cure him and might make him feel worse.
Not so, though, for a majority of patients diagnosed with cancers of the lung or colon that have spread well beyond their original site and are currently not curable by any drugs in the medical armamentarium. Most patients with these so-called stage 4 cancers who choose to undergo chemotherapy seem to believe, incorrectly, that the drugs could render them cancer-free.
That is the finding of a recent national study of nearly 1,200 patients with advanced cancers of the lung or colon. Overall, 69 percent of those with stage 4 lung cancer and 81 percent of those with stage 4 colon cancer failed to understand “that chemotherapy was not at all likely to cure their cancer,” Truth-stage 4 cancer should not be offered chemotherapy since we know chemotherapy will make cancer worse. Why would you take that option? Why would you not look at alternative options like these. (http://bit.ly/chemodamage) Dr. Jane C. Weeks, an oncology researcher at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. 
When patients do not understand the limitations of such treatment, their consent to undergo it is not truly informed, the authors concluded. Why don't they offer alternative treatment that anyone can find and with which many have benefited? http://bit.ly/kelleymetabolic 
This is not to say that chemotherapy is pointless when cancer is far advanced. Various drugs, some with limited toxicity, can be used as palliatives, perhaps shrinking tumors temporarily to relieve symptoms, slowing the cancer’s growth and prolonging the lives of some patients. False logic: shrink the tumor and greatly exascerbate the level of cancer insuring death by chemo and the spread of cancer called metastasis; Over 90% of all fatalities of cancer are caused by metastasis so why would you want to predict and cause this outcome?
But aggressive chemotherapy when death is but weeks or months in the offing can seriously compromise the quality of patients’ remaining time and may delay their preparations for the end of life, to the detriment of both patients and their families. After interviewing and testing thousands of people who took alternative methods for healing this prediction is only valid if you choose chemotherapy or radiation but much less predicable and safer methods. Many have seen success and many years of quality life with alternative methods are chosen. 
“If you think chemotherapy will cure you, you’re less open to end-of-life discussions,” Dr. Weeks said in an interview.
When patients pursue chemotherapy under the false belief that they still have a chance for a cure, it often delays their transition to the comfort care of hospice. When patients spend only a few days or a week in hospice, caretakers don’t have enough time to get to know them and their families and offer the physical, emotional and practical benefits hospice can provide. (Narrow minded thinking-many interviews revealed hospice is often no better than the outcome experienced by Kevorkian-death by drugs, but alternatives have better options, but are not often offered because there is not insurance coverage and thread between hospice and the hosptical discharge process for stage 4 cancer patients is a very tight thread. If the doctor beleives you are already dead and it is only a matter of time, he will send you to hospice and they will complete the task of death with drug overdose and no or poor nutrition).
Dr. Weeks said continued chemotherapy involves more trips to the hospital, blood draws and X-rays, whereas hospice attends to patients’ symptoms and concerns, and encourages them to leave meaningful legacies. When my husband entered hospice after two miserable weeks in the hospital undergoing palliative radiation, he experienced such relief that he said cheerfully, though in jest, “What if I decide I want to live?” and then enjoyed a treasured last visit with two of his grandchildren.
‘Optimistic Bias’
Communication is a two-way street; doctors and patients alike contribute to patients’ failure to appreciate medicine’s limited ability to treat advanced cancer. After many interviews this is a total cop out. The patient is frightened and made more so by the doctor and staff with predictions of death. With a modicum of research and reading like books titled "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease" by Seyfried, they could offer and suggest alternatives to patients. WHat is the key issue? There is no payment for this advice so offering something other than treatment for which the doctor is paid over $300,000 to $400,000 is at cross purposes. Chemotherapy is the only drug for which an oncologist can write a prescription and personally profit. http://bit.ly/chemo95failure 
In an editorial accompanying the journal report, Dr. Thomas J. Smith and Dr. Dan L. Longo pointed out that “people have an optimistic bias.” Despite a grim prognosis, this bias prompts patients to believe treatment can cure them. 
“Even with repeated discussions, about one-third of patients are not able to say they have a disease from which they will die in a year or so,” Dr. Smith, an oncologist and director of palliative care at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, said in an interview.
“Our job is not to force them into acceptance but to encourage them to plan for the worst while hoping for the best,” Dr. Smith said. “Such patients have better outcomes — less depression and less distress, and they’re more likely to die comfortably at home.”
Cultural and racial factors, and most likely religious beliefs, influence acceptance of the futility of continued treatment, Dr. Weeks said. In her study, nonwhite and Hispanic patients were more likely than whites to believe that chemotherapy could cure them. But surprisingly, patients’ educational level, degree of disability and participation in decision-making were not associated with inaccurate beliefs about chemotherapy.
What can make a huge difference, Dr. Smith said, is how and how often doctors discuss options with patients and describe the potential of continued treatment. He and Dr. Longo suggested that practitioners master “the conversation known as ‘ask, tell, ask,’ which consists of asking patients what they want to know about their prognosis, telling them what they want to know, and then asking, ‘What do you now understand about your situation?’ ”
Among the questions Dr. Smith said doctors should be asking are, “How much do you want to know about your cancer? What do you know about your cancer? Who would you like to include in discussions about your care? Would you like me to write down the important points? What is important to you? What are you hoping for? Who are your other doctors so that I can communicate with them?”
Continuing Discussion
Finally, he said, rather than asking the patient “do you have any questions?” the doctor should ask, “Now that we have discussed this, what is your understanding of your situation?” And rather than having this conversation only once, Dr. Smith said, “It should be repeated at every transition point.”
He and Dr. Longo also recommend that oncologists state the patient’s prognosis at the first visit, appoint someone in the office to discuss advance directives, schedule a hospice-information visit, and offer to discuss prognosis and coping at each transition.
Using this approach, practitioners in the US Oncology Network, a group of community-based oncology physicians, have doubled the time patients spend in hospice, decreased costs, alleviated patients’ symptoms, reduced stress on caregivers and often lengthened survival, Dr. Smith said. Various studies have shown that cancer patients in hospice live weeks to months longer than comparable patients not in hospice care.
When doctors fail to give direct, clear information, Dr. Smith suggests that patients ask, “What is my prognosis, really? What are my options? Can I meet with the palliative care and hospice teams?”
He noted, “This is the hardest conversation for doctors to have. A lot of doctors wait for someone to bring it up.” If the patient does not, then a family member can initiate the needed discussion. 

Cancer Treatment Documentary: Conventional vs Natural [2013]

Sunday, May 11, 2014