Consumption of flaxseed was associated with an 18% lower risk of breast cancer, and consumption of flax bread was associated with a 23% lower risk of breast cancer according to a study from Cancer Care Ontario.

People given the statin, pravastatin (Pravachol), had 25% more cancer than those given a placebo in the PROSPER trial.

• 65% more breast cancer
• 46% more gastrointestinal cancer
• 12% more respiratory cancer
• 41% more other cancers
• and they did not including non-melanoma skin cancer.
  (Previous studies have found that statins increase the risk of non-melanoma skin cancers.)

Women given the statin, pravastatin (Pravachol), had 12-times as much breast cancer as women given a placebo in the CARE trial.

Drug companies and their paid researchers have tried to convince people that statins lower the risk of cancer, but this study and many others suggest that the exact opposite is true — that statins increase the risk of cancer, not decrease the risk.

Long-term statin use (10 years or more) is associated with a more than 2-fold increased risk of breast cancer according to researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

Drug companies 
and their paid researchers have tried to convince people that 
statins lower the risk of cancer,
 but this study 
and many others 
suggest that the 
exact opposite is true — 
that statins increase the risk of cancer, not decrease the risk.

High levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with a lower risk of 13 types of cancer when compared to people with low levels of leisure-time physical activity according to a study done by researchers at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

The 13 cancers associated with a lower risk were:

• 10% lower risk of breast cancer
• 13% lower risk of bladder cancer
• 13% lower risk of rectal cancer
• 15% lower risk of head and neck cancer
• 16% lower risk of colon cancer
• 17% lower risk of multiple myeloma
• 20% lower risk of myeloid leukemia
• 21% lower risk of endometrial cancer
• 22% lower risk of gastric cardia
• 23% lower risk of kidney cancer
• 26% lower risk of lung cancer
• 27% lower risk of liver cancer
• 42% lower risk of esophageal cancer

Do statins increase cancer?

Yes, according to a letter published in Current Oncology.

The letter starts out by saying “prospective data suggest that statins actually increase cancer in certain segments of the population.”

Here are other quotes from the letter.

A 10% increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with a 11% higher breast cancer risk according to a large study from France.

“In this large prospective study, a 10% increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet was associated with a significant increase of greater than 10% in risks of overall and breast cancer,” the authors of the study concluded.

Among non-smokers, a 2 cup/day increase in coffee consumption was associated with a:

• 3% lower risk of dying from breast cancer
• 3% lower risk of dying from colorectal cancer
• 8% lower risk of dying from liver cancer

during a 30-year follow-up (1982-2012).

Among smokers and former-smokers, coffee consumption was associated with an increase in cancer deaths.

The study, done by the American Cancer Society, included 922,896 Cancer Prevention Study-II participants aged 28-94 years who completed a four-page questionnaire and were cancer free at baseline in 1982.

“These findings are consistent with many other studies that suggest coffee drinking is associated with a lower risk of colorectal, liver, female breast and head and neck cancer,” the authors of the study concluded.

In Denmark, 20% of women get mammograms and 80% do not.

In areas of the country where the women got mammograms, breast cancer deaths fell by 1% per year over a 10 year period (1997-2006) among women who were 55-74 years-old, but in areas where women do not get mammograms, breast cancer deaths fell by 2% per year, twice as much as in the screened areas!

In other words, breast cancer deaths fell twice as much in areas of Denmark where women do not get mammograms compared to areas where women do get mammograms!

Among women who were 35-55 years-old, breast cancer mortality during 1997- 2006 declined 5% per year in the screened areas and 6% per year in the non-screened areas.

In other words, this study shows that mammograms do not reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer.

For every 1,000 women in the US who are 50-years-old getting mammograms every two years, only one fewer breast cancer death will occur over 10 years, reducing the number who die from breast cancer from 5 women to 4 women, but there is no evidence that the total number of deaths is reduced because the radiation from mammograms and unnecessary treatment may cause one additional death from other causes, and out of every 1,000 women given mammograms, “490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100 [are likely to have] an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14 [are likely to have] an overdiagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent [and would never have caused them any problems],” according to a recent article by two Swiss researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Being overweight for a longer duration during adulthood significantly increased the incidence of all obesity-related cancers by 7% (for every ten-year increase in adulthood overweight duration), of postmenopausal breast cancer by 5%, and of endometrial cancer by 17%” according to a new study which followed 73,913 women for an average of 12.6 years.

Comment: I would not worry about a 7% increase.

Among women in the 1998 CARE trial in which people were given pravastatin to reduce cholesterol levels, there were 12 cases of breast cancer in women given the statin versus only one women who was given a placebo.

Total number of cancer cases was nearly twice as great in women given a statin as women given a placebo (23 cases versus 12 cases).

Lots of experimental evidence shows that lower cholesterol levels are associated with a higher risk of cancer, and higher cholesterol levels are associated with a lower risk of cancer.

“More recent studies suggest that mammography screening may no longer be effective in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer,” concludes The Cochrane Collaboration.

“Screening produces patients with breast cancer from among healthy women who would never have developed symptoms of breast cancer.

“Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying, e.g. from heart disease and cancer.

“It therefore no longer seems beneficial to attend for breast cancer screening.

“In fact, by avoiding going to screening, a woman will lower her risk of getting a breast cancer diagnosis.”

(The Cochrane Collaboration, founded in 1993, is a group of scientists around the world who analyze data to try and figure out the truth about drugs and other health topics.)

Long-term statin use is associated with double the risk of breast cancer according to a 2013 study.

Current users of statins for 10 years or longer had a 1.8-fold increased risk of invasive ductal carcinoma and a 2-fold increased risk of invasive lobular carcinoma compared with never users of statins.

Among women diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia, current users of statins for 10 years or longer had 2-times the risk of invasive ductal carcinoma and 2.4-times the risk of invasive lobular carcinoma compared with never users.

“In this contemporary population-based case-control study, long-term use of statins was associated with increased risks of both [invasive ductal carcinoma] and [invasive lobular carcinoma],” the authors of the study concluded.

“The high consumption of peanuts, walnuts, or almonds significantly reduced the risk for breast cancer by 2-3 times,” according to a recent study from Mexico.

“This protective effect was not found with low or moderate seed consumption when compared with null [no] consumption.”

Women consuming a high intake of garlic, which was not quantified, had 10% less breast cancer, although this was not statistically significant, compared to women who had a low intake of garlic according to a 2006 study from Milano, Italy which used data from an integrated network of Italian and Swiss case-control studies.

(Subjects were simply asked if they had a low intake, moderate intake or high intake of garlic.)

People consuming seven (7) or more servings of onions per week had 25% less breast cancer compared to people who did not consume onions according to a 2006 study from Milano, Italy which used data from an integrated network of Italian and Swiss case-control studies.

Women who ate one (1) serving of blueberries per week had a 31% lower risk of breast cancer over the next 24 years according to a study from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

This study followed 75,929 women, 38- to 63-years-old at baseline, and followed them for up to 24 years.

Women who ate two (2) servings of peaches per week had a 41% lower risk of breast cancer over the next 24 years according to a study from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

This study followed 75,929 women, 38- to 63-years-old at baseline, and followed them for up to 24 years.

SSRI’s may increase risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer, and interfere with REM sleep and cause memory problems notes Joan Mathews Larson PhD in this video clip.

More breast cancer screening does NOT reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer according to a new study.

The study looked at data from 547 U.S. counties.

Women who got screening mammograms varied from county to county from 39 percent to 78 percent.

Comparing counties where there was a 10% absolute increase in screening mammograms — for example, comparing counties where 50% of women were screened versus 40% of women were screened — there was NO decrease in breast cancer deaths.

1% MORE breast cancer deaths in counties with 10% MORE screening

The relative risk was 1.01, meaning there were 1% more breast cancer deaths where there was 10% more screening, but this difference was not statistically significant, meaning this difference could simply be due to random chance.

(It also suggests the possibility that women diagnosed with breast cancer radiation may INCREASE breast cancer deaths.)

80% more breast cancers diagnosed in the counties with the most screening, but NO decrease in breast cancer deaths

In counties with the MOST breast cancer screening versus the counties with the LEAST breast cancer screening, there were 80% more breast cancer diagnoses, (1.8 times more) but…

“We did NOT find any significant change in breast cancer deaths in this county-level analysis. This was quite surprising to me…” noted Charles Harding, lead author of the study, in an audio interview he did with the medical journal.

A one-minute audio clip from interview with the lead author, Charles Harding, is posted here.

In this video clip, Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, MD, author of the book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy notes that…

“We found out in just four weeks, 15 years ago, that mammography screening might NOT work.”

“We have done research on that ever since.”

“We can now substantiate that – it likely doesn’t work.”

Later in the video, Prof. Gøtzsche, MD goes on to say…

“So, if you look at total mortality, we can’t see any effect of [breast cancer] screening.

“If you look at total cancer mortality, remembering that radiotherapy causes cancer in healthy women, you can’t see any effect whatsoever.

“So my conclusion is that [breast cancer] screening should be stopped because it’s harmful.

“Also because one-quarter of women will get a false positive diagnosis, they will get a suspicion of a cancer that is rejected…

“A Danish study has shown that [women] are very worried even three years after they were declared free from cancer.

“The United States sees much more [misdiagnosis of breast cancer].

“It’s about double as many women get a false positive diagnosis because you are more aggressive here in the United States.

“So if you factor in this loss of quality of life in these women, you get a very negative results of [breast cancer] screening since it does not affect your mortality.

“So it is unequivocally harmful.

“We must stop this [screening for breast cancer]…

“Just as we don’t recommend prostate cancer screening in Europe.”

(A new study in the US found the same thing, that comparing counties in the US with the highest amount of women given screening mammography compared to the counties with the lowest amount of mammography screening, there was NO difference in breast cancer deaths over time.)

Obese women (BMI of 30 or more) have a 25% greater lifetime risk of breast cancer than healthy weight women according to Cancer Research UK .

Consumption of flaxseed was associated with an 18% reduction in the risk of breast cancer according to a study from Cancer Care Ontario, the Canadian government’s cancer advisor.

Consumption of flax bread was associated with an 23% reduction in the risk of breast cancer.

“This Canadian study is, to our knowledge, the first to report on the association between flaxseed alone and breast cancer risk and has found that flaxseed intake is associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk,” the paper concludes.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: If you limit your sugar you decrease your chances of developing cancer?

Lewis Cantley, PhD: Absolutely.

Cantley, a Harvard professor and the head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer Center, says when we eat or drink sugar, it causes a sudden spike in the hormone insulin, which can serve as a catalyst to fuel certain types of cancers.

Lewis Cantley: What we're beginning to learn is that insulin can cause adverse effects in the various tissues. And of particular concern is cancer.

Why? Nearly a third of some common cancers -- including breast and colon cancers -- have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose [which allows it to grow].

Lewis Cantley: Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these cancer cells also use it to grow. So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that's in the bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor. And the tumor uses it to grow.

Lewis Cantley's research team is working on developing drugs that will cut off the glucose supply to cancer cells and keep them from growing. But until there's a breakthrough, Cantley's advice? Don't eat sugar. And if you must, keep it to a minimum.

Cantley, a Harvard professor and the head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer Center, says when we eat or drink sugar, it causes a sudden spike in the hormone insulin, which can serve as a catalyst to fuel certain types of cancers.

Lewis Cantley: What we're beginning to learn is that insulin can cause adverse effects in the various tissues. And of particular concern is cancer.

Why? Nearly a third of some common cancers -- including breast and colon cancers -- have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose [which allows it to grow].

Lewis Cantley: Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these cancer cells also use it to grow. So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that's in the bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor. And the tumor uses it to grow.