Fish and Prostate Cancer Risk? Fish and fish oil supplements protect against prostate cancer, do not increase the risk for prostate cancer

Several scientific studies have found a reduction in prostate cancer associated with increased omega-3 intake.^1-11 A recent report purportedly showed the opposite.¹²
This report was based on a single blood test of plasma fatty acids in a group of 834 men who were followed up to six years to assess prostate cancer risk (low- and high-grade disease). A smaller group of 75 men was followed up to nine years to assess only high-grade prostate cancer risk.
The results showed that slightly higher omega-3 plasma percentages from this single blood test were associated with a greater risk of low-grade (44%) and high-grade (71%) prostate cancers over the multi-year follow-up.
This report was turned into news stories with headlines blaring “Omega-3 fatty acids may raise prostate cancer risk.”
Omitted from the media frenzy was the fact that this study was not about fish oil supplement users. The authors admitted they did not know how the study participants achieved what turned out to be very low omega-3 plasma percentages in all groups.
In fact, omega-3 plasma levels were only about 40% of what would be expected in health conscious people taking the proper dose of fish oil.^{12 ,13} The insufficient levels of plasma omega-3s in all the study subjects were overlooked by the media. Had these very low plasma levels of omega-3s been recognized, it would have been apparent that this report had no meaning for those who boost their omega-3 consumption through diet and supplements.
Also absent from the reporting was that more men with slightly higher omega-3 plasma levels had confounding risk factors for greater risk of contracting prostate cancer at baseline, such as having higher PSA scores and a positive family history. Although the authors attempted to statistically control (through a statistical model called multivariate analysis) for some of these risk factors in their analysis, the concern remains that the baseline data was confounded and therefore the statistical analysis invalid, and that the reported results are compromised by higher rates of preexisting disease along with a genetic predisposition, not because of the minuscule variance in the amount of their plasma omega-3.
Prostate cancer sharply increases by 120% to 180% in men who have a first-degree relative who had contracted prostate cancer. Nearly double the men who contracted prostate cancer in this study had a positive family history, and although the researchers attempted to statistically control for this confounding factor, this fact was conveniently overlooked by the mainstream media as omega-3s were instead labeled the culprit.
Associating a one-time plasma omega-3 reading with long term prostate cancer risk is ludicrous. That’s because plasma omega-3 changes rapidly with short-term dietary changes. It does not reflect long-term incorporation of omega-3 into cells and tissues. In this report, differences in baseline omega-3 blood measures were so trivial that if a man had just one salmon meal the night before, he could have wound up in the “higher” omega-3 group even if he never ingested another omega-3 again.¹⁴
Numerous flaws in this report render its findings useless for those who supplement with purified fish oils and follow healthy dietary patterns. This article represents Life Extension^®’s initial rebuttal to this spurious attack on omega-3s that was blown out of proportion by the media.

Prostate cancer is a slow developing malignancy that can take decades to manifest as clinically-relevant disease. Commonly recognized risk factors for contracting prostate cancer are diet, body mass, race, family history, hormone status, and age.^15,16
An under-recognized risk factor associated with developing prostate cancer is coronary artery disease.¹⁷ We at Life Extension long ago observed that men with clogged coronary arteries often developed prostate cancer (and vice versa). A renowned prostate oncologist named Stephen Strum, M.D., made a similar observation and established a common factor behind coronary heart disease and prostate cancer, i.e., bone loss.
Coronary artery disease is clearly linked with osteoporosis,¹⁸ as lack of vitamin K prevents calcium from binding to bone and instead allows it to infiltrate and harden the arteries. The ensuing bone loss results in the excessive release of bone-derived growth factors that fuel prostate cancer propagation and metastasis.
Long after Dr. Strum published his elaborate correlation, a 2012 study of 6,729 men showed coronary artery disease to be associated with a 35% increased risk of prostate cancer.¹⁷
The reason we bring up the connection of heart disease and prostate cancer is that the authors of the controversial study apparently failed to assess overall baseline health status of the study subjects. We initially suspected that men in the higher group of plasma omega-3 (which turned out to be low by our standards) were more likely to have coronary heart disease. That’s because men with heart disease are told by their cardiologists to eat less red meat and more cold-water fish. So it would not be surprising if the plasma percentage of omega-3 was higher in men with prostate cancer as they may have been trying to eat healthier to avoid bypass surgery or a sudden heart attack.
When we asked the authors of the report if they assessed the baseline cardiovascular status of the subjects, their reply was, “No, I don't believe this to be the case.”

Family History Predisposition

If your father or brother develops prostate cancer, your odds of getting it are about 120% to 180% greater than if you don’t have this family history.¹⁹
In the report attacking omega-3s, men who contracted prostate cancer had almost double the proportion of first-degree relatives with a history of prostate cancer compared with controls. Although the study authors apparently attempted to control for this baseline risk factor through the use of statistical modeling of selected variables (multivariate analysis), this confounding factor calls into question much of this report’s negative findings, but was not even mentioned in the media’s rush to create headline grabbers.
Men with a family history of prostate cancer often have witnessed the long term death spiral that prostate cancer patients suffer through. As a result, they attempt to adapt healthier lifestyles to avoid becoming a victim of their hereditary genes.
Since eating well-done red meat has long been associated with increased prostate cancer risk, men with unfavorable family histories are more likely to include at least some cold-water fish in their diets, and therefore have higher omega-3 percentage plasma levels. This does not mean the marginally higher omega-3 caused their prostate cancer.
This is partially corroborated with the data from the study participants who did not develop prostate cancer, but had higher plasma percentage levels of pro-inflammatory omega-6 fats. This indicated these individuals had little concern about what they ate since they had about half the family history rate of prostate cancer.
Fortunately there may be ways to alter family history genetic predispositions for prostate cancer by eating lots of cruciferous vegetables, maintaining youthful hormone balance, ensuring optimal vitamin D status, and taking compounds that favorably alter gene expression like metformin and curcumin.^20-28

Baseline PSA Higher in Those Who Contracted Prostate Cancer

Prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a blood marker of prostate disease.
Standard laboratory reference ranges often allow PSA to reach 4.0 ng/mL before flagging a potential problem. A more progressive view of the PSA is that any number over 2.4 ng/mL should be viewed with suspicion, with a digital rectal exam performed and a follow-up PSA blood test done in three months.
Life Extension has published comprehensive articles about how to properly interpret PSA results, but to state it succinctly: Aging men with PSA readings greater than 2.4 ng/mL are at higher risk for developing clinically relevant prostate cancer and should initiate aggressive steps to reverse the underlying process.
In the report that associated higher omega-3 blood levels with increased prostate cancer incidence, 41.1% of the men who went on to develop prostate cancer had baseline PSA readings greater than 3.0 ng/mL. In the group that did not develop prostate cancer, only 7.3% has a PSA baseline reading greater than 3.0 ng/mL.
Although the study researchers attempted to statistically control for other confounding factors in their analysis like family history, age, and education level, this PSA finding implies that many of the men who developed prostate cancer already had it (pre-existing disease) when the baseline plasma omega-3 level was measured. This finding of 5.6 times more men who developed prostate cancer with a baseline PSA level greater than 3.0 ng/mL compared to the “no cancer” group is impossible to rationally discount. To reiterate, below is the data on the baseline PSA readings from the report the media used to discredit omega-3s:

• 7.3% of the “No Cancer” group had PSA of ≥3.0
• 41.1% of the “Total Cancer” group had PSA of ≥3.0

This critical piece of data was ignored in the tabloid-like media articles that erroneously blamed the increase in prostate cancer on omega-3s.

Study Subjects do not Appear to Have Taken Fish Oil Supplements

Life Extension scientists repeatedly reached out to the authors of the negative report, but did not receive a response as to whether any attempt was made to ascertain the source of the omega-3 in the study subjects’ blood. We wanted to know if these men regularly ate cold-water fish or took at least some fish oil supplements.
Despite our requests, no clarification was made available by study authors as to the level of dietary supplementation with fish oil, and if so, the source of fish oil used in the study.
Based upon the very low plasma percentage levels of omega-3 fatty acids detected in the study, the implication is that dietary supplementation with fish oil likely did not occur. Instead, based upon the low levels of omega-3 plasma phospholipids detected, the source appears to have been primarily (potentially exclusively) diet only. As we will show soon, it appears that none of the men in this study consumed much in the way of cold-water fish either.

Omega-3 Levels Were Low in All Study Subjects

You will be shocked to learn how low the average plasma percentages of omega-3 were in all these study subjects, whether they were in the high or low rate of prostate cancer group.
Plasma phospholipid testing for fatty acids was used in this study. However, this type of fatty acid testing can vary widely depending upon short-term dietary intake. In contrast, long-term uptake by cells and tissues of the body is far less dependent upon short-term changes in diet. For this reason, erythrocyte (red blood cell) fatty acid indices are far better at evaluating cellular uptake over time as a result of fish ingestion and fish oil supplementation.
For example, data indicates that supplementing with about 2 grams of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil leads to an increase in erythrocyte (red blood cell) omega-3 fatty acid percentage from about 4% at baseline to about 8% at eight weeks.¹³
In a case analysis conducted by Life Extension staff, a healthy diet that included fish but not fish oil supplementation resulted in an omega-3 red blood cell (RBC) equivalence level of 6.06%.
However, a standard diet supplemented with 3.6 grams of EPA/DHA from purified fish oil resulted in an omega-3 RBC equivalence level of 10.59%. Thus, compared to what can be achieved with a healthy diet alone, adding a high quality fish oil supplement can nearly double a person’s omega-3 RBC equivalence score, which is consistent with the published literature.
Therefore, if participants in the report alleging an association with fish and prostate cancer had been taking meaningful doses of fish oil supplements, their levels should have been substantially higher than what the study authors reported. Instead, for men in the prostate cancer group of this study, the percentage of plasma long-chain omega-3 fatty acids was only 4.66% ... a lower level than historic baselines taking no supplemental omega-3s.¹³
The numbers below should clarify this glaring flaw that renders conclusions from this report claiming fish or fish oil increases prostate cancer utterly meaningless:

• Omega-3 RBC equivalence percentage of a moderate fish eater: 6.06%
• Omega-3 RBC equivalence percentage when taking 3.6 grams/day EPA/DHA: 10.59%
• Average long-chain omega-3 plasma percentage in study group with higher prostate cancer rates: 4.66%
• Average long-chain omega-3 plasma percentage in study control group (no prostate cancer): 4.48%

Figure 1: If you can’t see a difference in the two bars showing plasma percentage of omega-3s between men who contracted prostate cancer and those who did not, that’s because there is virtually no difference. The 0.18% variation could have resulted from men eating just a few ounces of fish the night before their one-time baseline blood draw. These low percentages of plasma omega-3s indicate these men were not taking fish oil supplements, nor were they eating much in the way of omega-3-rich foods in their diet.

There may be no need to provide any more rebuttal than the numbers posted above. They make it clear that the average subject in their groups were consuming very little cold-water fish and certainly no meaningful fish oil supplement. Their entire study population was so negligible in omega-3 that no relevant correlation can be drawn for health conscious people today choosing omega-3-rich foods (like cold-water fish) and high-potency fish oil supplements.
Yet based on this study of men who consumed relatively no omega-3s, frenzied news reporters were advising the public to stop eating cold-water fish and avoid omega-3 supplements.

Virtually No Difference in Omega-3 in Men Who Developed Prostate Cancer

When reading the frantic news reports, you would have thought the omega-3 difference in men with up to 71% increased risk of prostate cancer must have been huge.
At Life Extension, our very first reaction was that the researchers were comparing cardiac patients who gobbled down huge amounts of fish oil supplements to normal individuals who consume relatively little omega-3s. Our initial assumption was that since heart disease patients have higher prostate cancer rates, then that would explain why higher omega-3 could be mistakenly associated with increased prostate cancer risk, since heart disease patients are known to consistently take high-potencies of omega-3s through diet and supplements. How wrong our early conjecture was!
It turns out that the differences in omega-3 plasma phospholipid levels between groups were slight. In fact they were so close that we at Life Extension would classify them all as being too narrow to extrapolate meaningful data.
Our goal is to get the red blood cell (RBC) omega-3 index values in Life Extension members to 8%-11% as this level was shown to offer the greatest protection against sudden myocardial infarction, yet the average quartile for plasma long-chain omega-3 fatty acids in the prostate cancer cases in the report associating fish oil with prostate cancer was only 4.66%.
Now look how narrow the difference is between men with higher prostate cancer rates. In the group whose average baseline blood draw showed 4.48% plasma long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, there was no increased prostate cancer risk. But if the omega-3 percentage average went up to 4.66% (about 1/5 of one percent), prostate cancer rates skyrocketed, according to the report’s authors.
We’re talking here of a difference of 0.18% in the percentage of plasma omega-3 fatty acids that supposedly caused a 43% to 71% increase in prostate cancer incidence. Dedicated fish oil supplement users, on the other hand have over 100% higher omega-3 levels than seen in this study of men who apparently consumed little cold-water fish and no omega-3 supplements.
To put this into real-world perspective, the trivial difference (0.18%) in plasma omega-3 between men with no prostate cancer and those with prostate cancer could occur if a man ate just a few ounces of a cold-water fish like salmon the night before.
Remember, plasma phospholipid testing for fatty acids was used in this study. However, this type of fatty acid testing can vary widely depending upon short-term dietary intake. In contrast, long-term uptake by cells and tissues of the body is far less dependent upon short-term changes in diet. For this reason, the omega-3 RBC equivalence score is far better at evaluating cellular uptake over time as a result of fish ingestion and fish oil supplementation.
There was only one baseline blood draw. The men were followed up to six years (low-grade and high-grade cancer), with a smaller group followed up to nine years to see who would get high-grade prostate cancer. Those who developed prostate cancer were then compared against their baseline blood draw done years earlier.
This kind of methodology is open to misinterpretation and errors even if there were large variances in omega-3 fatty acid percentages, but the 0.18% difference is so tiny that it has no relevance to aging humans who choose to include omega-3-rich foods in their diet and supplement with fish oil.
This may be the first study that seeks to discredit a food/supplement (i.e., omega-3s), where the human subjects were not even taking a fish oil supplement nor ingesting significant amounts of an omega-3 food.
A 0.18% difference in plasma omega-3 fatty acids between men who contracted prostate cancer and those who did not is infinitesimally small. To extrapolate a conclusion from this very small difference that eating fish or taking fish oil supplements is risky, false, misleading, and meaningless … but it did generate a lot of news headlines.
Life Extension is concerned that some men will decrease consumption of omega-3s resulting in a devastating increase of their triglycerides, thrombotic, inflammatory and atherogenic risks. An epidemic of coronary artery blockage and ischemic stroke will soon follow.

Results Are Completely Inconsistent With the Known Biology, Pathophysiology, and Biochemistry of Prostate Cancer

A fundamental aspect of quality research is consistency, and repeatability.
Stated another way, for a medical finding to be considered valid, the results should not contradict well-established facts involving known biology, physiology, biochemistry, etc. Furthermore, the finding should be repeatable by other scientists.
The report attacking omega-3s is inconsistent with a variety of aspects of the well-established scientific and medical literature.
For example, upon close inspection of the data (and not simply a top-line, parroted response by the mainstream media eager to generate headlines), non-smokers had more aggressive prostate cancer, and non-drinkers (alcohol) had higher risk of prostate cancer, and prostate cancer case subjects were less likely to report a history of diabetes than controls.
Based upon these results, the implication is that men who wish to avoid prostate cancer should consume excess calories and develop diabetes, drink alcohol heavily, and abuse tobacco.
This is completely inconsistent with well-established science, and utter nonsense.
In fact, numerous scientific studies show fish oil omega-3 fatty acids offer significant protective benefit for prostate health.

Fish Oil Omega-3 Fatty Acids Offer the First Line of Defense Against Prostate Cancer

In contrast to this attack on omega-3s, the scientific literature overwhelmingly identifies diets high in omega-6 fats, trans-fatty acids, and saturated fats as associated with greater prostate cancer risk, whereas increased intake of long-chain omega-3 fats from fish has been shown to reduce risk. Based on consistent findings across a wide range of human populations, scientific research has identified why eating the wrong kinds of fatty acids provokes a stimulatory effect on prostate cancer.^29,30
To ascertain what occurs after dietary fatty acids are consumed, the biochemical pathway for fatty acid metabolism provides the answers. For example, let us assume that for dinner, you eat a steak (a source of saturated fat, as well as arachidonic acid) and a salad, along with a typical salad dressing rich in linoleic acid, an omega-6 fat (e.g., safflower oil).

 

Biochemically, omega-6 fat readily converts to arachidonic acid in the body. In response, the body attempts to compensate for excess arachidonic acid through the 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) pathway. Multiple studies strongly show that 5-LOX enzymatic by-products like leukotriene B4 and 5-HETE directly stimulate prostate cancer cell proliferation through several well-defined mechanisms.^31-36
For example, arachidonic acid is metabolized by 5-LOX to 5-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid (5-HETE), a potent survival factor that prostate cancer cells use to escape destruction.^37,38 Consuming a diet of foods rich in arachidonic acid, or precursors to arachidonic acid like the omega-6 fat linoleic acid, directly provokes the production of dangerous 5-LOX metabolic by-products, which can promote the progression of prostate cancer. In addition to 5-HETE, 5-LOX also metabolizes arachidonic acid into leukotriene B4, a potent pro-inflammatory agent that causes destructive reactions throughout the body and inflicts severe damage to the arterial wall.^39-41
If arachidonic acid levels are reduced, a corresponding suppression of the 5-LOX products 5-HETE and leukotriene B4 will occur. A wealth of scientific research clearly demonstrates that supplementation with long-chain fatty acids like EPA and DHA from fish oil can help reduce the production of arachidonic acid-derived eicosanoids in the body.⁴²
In contrast with the misinterpreted results presented in this report of men who were not consuming significant amounts of omega-3s, many other clinical studies indicate substantial benefit with omega-3 fatty acid intake in prostate cancer.

Additional Studies Indicate Substantial Benefit With Increased Intake of Omega-3 Fatty Acids

The report attacking omega-3s conflicts with prior studies demonstrating that increased intake of omega-3 fats has been shown to reduce prostate cancer risk and diets high in omega-6 fats are associated with greater risk. The analysis also suggests a relationship between increased omega-6 fatty acid levels and decreased risk of prostate cancer, which is, again, utterly inconsistent with the known pro-inflammatory effects of omega-6 fatty acids.

• A 2010 meta-analysis found a 63% reduction in prostate cancer death rates in those with higher fish consumption.¹
• A 2004 study of 47 ,866 men found a trend toward decreased risk of prostate cancer with increasing levels of EPA and DHA.²
• A 2007 Harvard study of 14, 916 men found lower incidence of prostate cancer in men who had higher levels of long chain omega-3 fatty acids.³
• A 2013 Harvard study of 293, 464 men found increased omega-3 fatty acid intake was associated with significantly lower rate of fatal prostate cancer.⁴
• A 2012 Harvard study of 525 men found a 40% lower prostate cancer death rate among men with the highest intake of marine fatty acids.⁵
• A 2011 Duke University study found an increased omega-6:omega-3 ratio (i.e., more omega-6 and less omega-3) was associated with a significantly elevated risk of high grade prostate cancer.⁶
• A 1999 New Zealand study found significantly lower rates of prostate cancer with higher blood levels of EPA and DHA.⁷
• A 1999 Korean study found increased blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids associated with lower rates of prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia.⁸
• A 2003 prospective study reported “that men with high consumption of fish had a lower risk of prostate cancer, especially for metastatic cancer.”¹⁰
• A 2010 study that evaluated nutrient intake and prostate cancer risk concluded “High intake of omega-6 fatty acids, through their effects on inflammation and oxidative stress, may increase prostate cancer risk.”⁴³
• The University of Chicago conducted a study published in 2004 that showed PSA levels rose in tandem with the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in Jamaican men whose PSA was >10 ng/mL. The researchers noted “Increased levels of Omega6 PUFAs and the ratio of Omega6/Omega3 PUFAs in Jamaican men are associated with an increased mean PSA level and risk of prostate cancer.”⁴⁴
• In addition to the clinical trial literature indicating consistent benefits with omega-3 fatty acid intake, traditional Japanese and Mediterranean diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids show a strong, consistent risk reduction in prostate cancer vs. Western diets rich in omega-6 and saturated fat.

Traditional Diets in Japan and The Mediterranean Region High in Fish are Protective Against Prostate Cancer

The results set forth by authors of the negative report on fish oil that omega-3 intake may be linked to prostate cancer are inconsistent, and in abject contrast, to longstanding evidence that diets high in marine lipids, such as the traditional Japanese diet and the Mediterranean diet, are protective against prostate cancer.
For example, the traditional Japanese diet, rich in omega-3 fatty acids from fish, confers protection against prostate cancer, as does the relatively high intake of fermented soy products and relatively low levels of saturated fat.⁴⁵ The characteristics of the traditional Japanese diet high in soybean products, high in fish, and low in red meat are highly relevant in prostate cancer biology. In all likelihood, the traditional Japanese diet reduces the risk of prostate cancer through a combination of characteristics that generate a synergistic, anti-cancer effect (on prostate cancer).
Likewise, the protective properties of the Mediterranean diet in relation to heart disease and prostate cancer risk are well-established. Several aspects of this dietary pattern are protective, including regular consumption of small fish (smaller fish are less likely to contain contaminants than larger predatory fish such as tuna), high olive oil intake (there is synergy between olive polyphenols and fish oil), high daily ingestion of fresh vegetables, whole fruits (not pasteurized fruit juice rich in concentrated fructose), high-fiber cereals and legumes, and low intake of saturated animal fats and red meat.⁴⁶

Benefit Clearly Outweighs Risk for Fish Oil Supplementation Among Men

Overwhelming evidence currently available strongly favors fish oil supplementation for most aging humans.
Fish oil and greater marine omega-3 intake have repeatedly and consistently been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk across multiple types of studies. For example:
A randomized, placebo-controlled trial found 1,800 mg of combined EPA plus DHA was associated with a 10% lower rate of cardiac events, 12% lower rate of non-fatal infarctions, and an almost 11% lower rate of cardiac deaths.⁴⁷
In a large intervention study, 18,000 patients were randomized to receive either a statin medication alone or a statin plus 1,800 mg of EPA-fish oil daily. After five years, those with a history of coronary artery disease had a 19% lower rate of major coronary events in the statin-plus EPA-fish oil group compared to the statin-only group.⁴⁸
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with chronic hemodialysis patients found that 1,700 mg of omega-3 fatty acids daily was associated with a 70% reduction in the relative risk of myocardial infarction.⁴⁹
A randomized, controlled trial using 3,300 mg of EPA and DHA (and then a decreased dosage) found a trend toward lower cardiovascular event occurrence with fish oil supplementation. Seven cardiovascular events occurred in the placebo group (not given fish oil) while only two cardiovascular events occurred in the fish oil-supplemented group during the study.⁵⁰
A meta-analysis with an average fish oil dose of 3,700 mg found lowered systolic blood pressure by an average 2.1 mmHg and diastolic by 1.6 mmHg.⁵¹
In a randomized trial with peripheral arterial disease patients, 2,000 mg of omega-3 fatty acids daily resulted in a 49% improvement in flow-mediated dilation, a marker of endothelial cell health.⁵²
The GISSI-Prevenzione study (a large, randomized, controlled trial) found that 1,000 mg/day of EPA and DHA in 11,323 patients with a history of recent myocardial infarction reduced the risk of total mortality by 20% and sudden death by 45%.^53,54
The DART study — a randomized, controlled trial that examined the effects of advising 2,033 subjects to increase dietary fatty fish — revealed a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with those not advised.⁵⁵
A 2009 meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials found that dietary supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids reduced the incidence of sudden cardiac death in subjects with prior myocardial infarction.⁵⁶
Another 2009 meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials found that dietary supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids reduced the risk of cardiovascular death, sudden cardiac death, all-cause mortality, and non-fatal cardiovascular events in patients with a history of certain cardiovascular events or risk factors.⁵⁷
A 2008 meta-analysis found a significant reduction in death from cardiac causes with fish oil supplementation.⁵⁸
A 2002 meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials concluded that omega-3 fatty acids reduced overall mortality, mortality due to myocardial infarction, and sudden death in patients with coronary heart disease.⁵⁹

Will this Flawed Report Prompt an Epidemic of Prostate Cancer?

Regrettably, the public is poorly served by relying on a sound-bite frenzied news media for health data, which often involves parading a provocative medical headline without a deep, thorough evaluation of the study’s validity.
This “science by ambush” denies an opportunity for meaningful rebuttal, since the media never wants to admit last week’s headline news story was bogus.
The average percentage difference (0.18%) of plasma long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from a single baseline test renders this study meaningless. The authors don’t even know if their study subjects were eating fish or taking fish oil supplements. We at Life Extension have criticized certain studies that solely rely on food questionnaires, but this attack on omega-3s didn’t even attempt to ascertain if study subjects were ingesting the nutrient (omega-3s) in question. Yet its authors presumptuously warn of potential risks in consuming supplemental omega-3s!
The lack of rigor, as well as multiple layers of methodological problems and errors, notwithstanding the complete lack of consistency with the known, well-established biology and biochemistry of prostate cancer should prompt outrage in the scientific and medical community.
The danger of this deeply flawed, compromised analysis is that aging men obtaining health information through the mainstream media will cease omega-3 fatty acid ingestion.
The consequences may be profound if aging men shun omega-3 fatty acid supplementation as a result of this flawed study and follows its implied recommendations to consume more omega-6 fats, which enhance inflammation and create a better environment for prostate cancer, as well as cardiovascular disease to flourish.
Although the researchers attempted to statistically model (through multivariate analysis) and control for some (but not all) critical, confounding risk factors like family history, the higher baseline PSA readings (implying more preexisting cancers) and positive family history (1^st degree male relative with prostate cancer) in men who went on to develop prostate cancer raise concerns for the integrity of the analysis results. Along with these confounding factors, the marginal difference in baseline plasma omega-3 levels of men who later developed prostate cancer cannot rationally implicate omega-3s as having a causal or causative effect. The plasma omega-3 levels of the entire study group showed consumption of omega-3 from food was inadequate and intake of meaningful fish oil supplementation non-existent.
Educated health consumers should continue to ingest omega-3 fatty acids.
This report will be updated as more of Life Extension’s scientific advisors provide their input.

References

1. Szymanski KM, Wheeler DC, Mucci LA. Fish consumption and prostate cancer risk: a review and meta-analysis. The American journal of clinical nutrition. Nov 2010;92(5):1223-1233.
2. Leitzmann MF, Stampfer MJ, Michaud DS, et al. Dietary intake of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids and the risk of prostate cancer. The American journal of clinical nutrition. Jul 2004;80(1):204-216.
3. Chavarro JE, Stampfer MJ, Li H, Campos H, Kurth T, Ma J. A prospective study of polyunsaturated fatty acid levels in blood and prostate cancer risk. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. Jul 2007;16(7):1364-1370.
4. Bosire C, Stampfer MJ, Subar AF, et al. Index-based dietary patterns and the risk of prostate cancer in the NIH-AARP diet and health study. American journal of epidemiology. Mar 15 2013;177(6):504-513.
5. Epstein MM, Kasperzyk JL, Mucci LA, et al. Dietary fatty acid intake and prostate cancer survival in Orebro County, Sweden. American journal of epidemiology. Aug 1 2012;176(3):240-252.
6. Williams CD, Whitley BM, Hoyo C, et al. A high ratio of dietary n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. Nutrition research (New York, N.Y.). Jan 2011;31(1):1-8.
7. Norrish AE, Skeaff CM, Arribas GL, Sharpe SJ, Jackson RT. Prostate cancer risk and consumption of fish oils: a dietary biomarker-based case-control study. British journal of cancer. Dec 1999;81(7):1238-1242.
8. Yang YJ, Lee SH, Hong SJ, Chung BC. Comparison of fatty acid profiles in the serum of patients with prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Clinical biochemistry. Aug 1999;32(6):405-409.
9. Astorg P. Dietary N-6 and N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and prostate cancer risk: a review of epidemiological and experimental evidence. Cancer causes & control : CCC. May 2004;15(4):367-386.
10. Augustsson K, Michaud DS, Rimm EB, et al. A prospective study of intake of fish and marine fatty acids and prostate cancer. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. Jan 2003;12(1):64-67.
11. Aronson WJ, Kobayashi N, Barnard RJ, et al. Phase II prospective randomized trial of a low-fat diet with fish oil supplementation in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.). Dec 2011;4(12):2062-2071.
12. Brasky TM, Darke AK, Song X, et al. Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Jul 10 2013.
13. Cao J, Schwichtenberg KA, Hanson NQ, Tsai MY. Incorporation and clearance of omega-3 fatty acids in erythrocyte membranes and plasma phospholipids. Clinical chemistry. Dec 2006;52(12):2265-2272.
14. Harris W. et al. Comparative effects of an acute dose of fish oil on omega-3 fatty acid levels in red blood cells versus plasma: Implications for clinical utility. Journal of Clinical Lipidology, 5/9/2013.
15. American Cancer Society. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-risk-factors . Accessed 7/15/2013.
16. University of Maryland Medical Center. Prostate cancer. Available at: http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/condition/prostate-cancer Accessed 7/15/2013.
17. Thomas JA, 2nd, Gerber L, Banez LL, et al. Prostate cancer risk in men with baseline history of coronary artery disease: results from the REDUCE Study. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. Apr 2012;21(4):576-581.
18. Farhat G. et al. The link between osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2008 Jan-Apr; 5(1): 19–34.
19. Bruner DW, Moore D, Parlanti A, Dorgan J, Engstrom P. Relative risk of prostate cancer for men with affected relatives: systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer. Dec 10 2003;107(5):797-803.
20. Chinni SR, Li Y, Upadhyay S, Koppolu PK, Sarkar FH. Indole-3-carbinol (I3C) induced cell growth inhibition, G1 cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. May 24 2001;20(23):2927-2936.
21. Cohen JH, Kristal AR, Stanford JL. Fruit and vegetable intakes and prostate cancer risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Jan 5 2000;92(1):61-68.
22. Morgentaler A. Testosterone For Life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
23. Vijayakumar S, Mehta RR, Boerner PS, Packianathan S, Mehta RG. Clinical trials involving vitamin D analogs in prostate cancer. Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.). Sep-Oct 2005;11(5):362-373.
24. Lou YR, Qiao S, Talonpoika R, Syvala H, Tuohimaa P. The role of Vitamin D3 metabolism in prostate cancer. The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology. Nov 2004;92(4):317-325.
25. John EM, Schwartz GG, Koo J, Van Den Berg D, Ingles SA. Sun exposure, vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms, and risk of advanced prostate cancer. Cancer research. Jun 15 2005;65(12):5470-5479.
26. Ben Sahra I, Laurent K, Giuliano S, et al. Targeting cancer cell metabolism: the combination of metformin and 2-deoxyglucose induces p53-dependent apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. Cancer research. Mar 15 2010;70(6):2465-2475.
27. Teiten MH, Gaascht F, Eifes S, Dicato M, Diederich M. Chemopreventive potential of curcumin in prostate cancer. Genes & nutrition. Mar 2010;5(1):61-74.
28. Piantino CB, Salvadori FA, Ayres PP, et al. An evaluation of the anti-neoplastic activity of curcumin in prostate cancer cell lines. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. May-Jun 2009;35(3):354-360; discussion 361.
29. Newcomer LM, King IB, Wicklund KG, Stanford JL. The association of fatty acids with prostate cancer risk. The Prostate. Jun 1 2001;47(4):262-268.
30. Niclis C, Diaz Mdel P, Eynard AR, Roman MD, La Vecchia C. Dietary habits and prostate cancer prevention: a review of observational studies by focusing on South America. Nutrition and cancer. 2012;64(1):23-33.
31. Hassan S, Carraway RE. Involvement of arachidonic acid metabolism and EGF receptor in neurotensin-induced prostate cancer PC3 cell growth. Regulatory peptides. Jan 15 2006;133(1-3):105-114.
32. Moretti RM, Montagnani Marelli M, Sala A, Motta M, Limonta P. Activation of the orphan nuclear receptor RORalpha counteracts the proliferative effect of fatty acids on prostate cancer cells: crucial role of 5-lipoxygenase. International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer. Oct 20 2004;112(1):87-93.
33. Matsuyama M, Yoshimura R, Mitsuhashi M, et al. Expression of lipoxygenase in human prostate cancer and growth reduction by its inhibitors. International journal of oncology. Apr 2004;24(4):821-827.
34. Gupta S, Srivastava M, Ahmad N, Sakamoto K, Bostwick DG, Mukhtar H. Lipoxygenase-5 is overexpressed in prostate adenocarcinoma. Cancer. Feb 15 2001;91(4):737-743.
35. Ghosh J, Myers CE. Arachidonic acid stimulates prostate cancer cell growth: critical role of 5-lipoxygenase. Biochemical and biophysical research communications. Jun 18 1997;235(2):418-423.
36. Gao X, Grignon DJ, Chbihi T, et al. Elevated 12-lipoxygenase mRNA expression correlates with advanced stage and poor differentiation of human prostate cancer. Urology. Aug 1995;46(2):227-237.
37. Sundaram S, Ghosh J. Expression of 5-oxoETE receptor in prostate cancer cells: critical role in survival. Biochemical and biophysical research communications. Jan 6 2006;339(1):93-98.
38. Myers CE, Ghosh J. Lipoxygenase inhibition in prostate cancer. European urology. 1999;35(5-6):395-398.
39. Helgadottir A, Manolescu A, Thorleifsson G, et al. The gene encoding 5-lipoxygenase activating protein confers risk of myocardial infarction and stroke. Nature genetics. Mar 2004;36(3):233-239.
40. Poff CD, Balazy M. Drugs that target lipoxygenases and leukotrienes as emerging therapies for asthma and cancer. Current drug targets. Inflammation and allergy. Mar 2004;3(1):19-33.
41. Crooks SW, Bayley DL, Hill SL, Stockley RA. Bronchial inflammation in acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: the role of leukotriene B4. The European respiratory journal. Feb 2000;15(2):274-280.
42. Adam O, Beringer C, Kless T, et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of a low arachidonic acid diet and fish oil in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology international. Jan 2003;23(1):27-36.
43. Kristal AR, Arnold KB, Neuhouser ML, et al. Diet, supplement use, and prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. American journal of epidemiology. Sep 1 2010;172(5):566-577.
44. Ritch CR, Brendler CB, Wan RL, Pickett KE, Sokoloff MH. Relationship of erythrocyte membrane polyunsaturated fatty acids and prostate-specific antigen levels in Jamaican men. BJU international. Jun 2004;93(9):1211-1215.
45. Mori M, Masumori N, Fukuta F, et al. Traditional Japanese diet and prostate cancer. Molecular nutrition & food research. Feb 2009;53(2):191-200.
46. Ferris-Tortajada J, Berbel-Tornero O, Garcia-Castell J, Ortega-Garcia JA, Lopez-Andreu JA. [Dietetic factors associated with prostate cancer: protective effects of Mediterranean diet]. Actas urologicas espanolas. Apr 2012;36(4):239-245.
47. Singh RB, Niaz MA, Sharma JP, Kumar R, Rastogi V, Moshiri M. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fish oil and mustard oil in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction: the Indian experiment of infarct survival--4. Cardiovascular drugs and therapy / sponsored by the International Society of Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy. Jul 1997;11(3):485-491.
48. Yokoyama M, Origasa H, Matsuzaki M, et al. Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on major coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients (JELIS): a randomised open-label, blinded endpoint analysis. Lancet. Mar 31 2007;369(9567):1090-1098.
49. Svensson M, Schmidt EB, Jorgensen KA, Christensen JH. N-3 fatty acids as secondary prevention against cardiovascular events in patients who undergo chronic hemodialysis: a randomized, placebo-controlled intervention trial. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN. Jul 2006;1(4):780-786.
50. von Schacky C, Angerer P, Kothny W, Theisen K, Mudra H. The effect of dietary omega-3 fatty acids on coronary atherosclerosis. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Annals of internal medicine. Apr 6 1999;130(7):554-562.
51. Geleijnse JM, Giltay EJ, Grobbee DE, Donders AR, Kok FJ. Blood pressure response to fish oil supplementation: metaregression analysis of randomized trials. Journal of hypertension. Aug 2002;20(8):1493-1499.
52. Schiano V, Laurenzano E, Brevetti G, et al. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid in peripheral arterial disease: effect on lipid pattern, disease severity, inflammation profile, and endothelial function. Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland). Apr 2008;27(2):241-247.
53. Marchioli R, Barzi F, Bomba E, et al. Early protection against sudden death by n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids after myocardial infarction: time-course analysis of the results of the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevenzione. Circulation. Apr 23 2002;105(16):1897-1903.
54. Efficacy of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and feasibility of optimizing preventive strategies in patients at high cardiovascular risk: rationale, design and baseline characteristics of the Rischio and Prevenzione study, a large randomised trial in general practice. Trials. 2010;11:68.
55. Burr ML, Fehily AM, Gilbert JF, et al. Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes on death and myocardial reinfarction: diet and reinfarction trial (DART). Lancet. Sep 30 1989;2(8666):757-761.
56. Zhao YT, Chen Q, Sun YX, et al. Prevention of sudden cardiac death with omega-3 fatty acids in patients with coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Annals of medicine. 2009;41(4):301-310.
57. Marik PE, Varon J. Omega-3 dietary supplements and the risk of cardiovascular events: a systematic review. Clinical cardiology. Jul 2009;32(7):365-372.
58. Leon H, Shibata MC, Sivakumaran S, Dorgan M, Chatterley T, Tsuyuki RT. Effect of fish oil on arrhythmias and mortality: systematic review. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2008;337:a2931.
59. Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C, Meier G. N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The American journal of medicine. Mar 2002;112(4):298-304.

William Faloon, Luke Huber, ND, MBA, Kira Schmid, ND, Blake Gossard, Scott Fogle, ND 
http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/fish-and-prostate-Cancer-Risk-Fact-or-Fiction.htm

Vitamin D Research Controversy. Vitamin D is beneficial

You've seen the news headlines surrounding the recent study which claimed that vitamin D has minimal benefit to health.
Now, watch this interview from GrassrootsHealth where Carole Baggerly and Dr. Cedric Garland discuss the study, as well as other studies, in length:
Here is a short text by Dr. Cedric Garland about the Autier paper, Vitamin D status and ill health: a systematic review.
"This meta-analysis is nothing new and is already obsolete, since it is mainly based on old papers that used too little vitamin D to expect any effect. A New Zealand study saying we should only supplement people with vitamin D deficiency and evidence of bone loss is equally wrong. Virtually everyone in New Zealand, and most adults in the US, are vitamin D deficient by modern criteria, being below 32 ng/ml. The reality is that we now know that they are deficient with regard to extraskeletal effects of 25(OH)D if their serum level is below 40 ng/ml.
These papers should be disregarded as obsolete work. We are moving into a new era of using vitamin D3 in doses no less that 4,000 IU/day for people aged 9 years and older (The NAS-IOM total upper level intakes [TULI's] that are safe for daily use per NAS-IOM monograph, 2011). Studies using less than 4000 IU/day are on the verge of obsolescence.
It does not matter much that giving 400 IU/d in the meta-analysis being cited did not achieve very much -- the amount given to the subjects was less than a tenth the effective dose. The authors of this review did not use any epidemiological research and they appear to have paid no attention in their conclusions to the only RCT that was relevant, that of Lappe et al. in 2007.
Lapper et al. used 1100 IU/day of vitamin D3 and 1500 mg/day of calcium. They achieved a serum level of approximately 40 ng/ml. It reported a 77% reduction in incidence of all invasive cancer combined, after a 1-year run-in period. The benefit was 60% less cancer without a run-in period. These cancers included breast, colon, lung and others. The women in the Lappe et al. RCT were very compliant. The result was statistically significant.
The Lappe et al, study and the many supportive epidemiological studies that preceded and followed it should prove to even the most ill-informed skeptic that vitamin D prevents most cancer. It is incredible that the authors of this review virtually disregarded all of the relevant epidemiology this randomized controlled clinical trial.
Several scientists have informed the editors of the journal, that published the review, presenting their objections to the conclusions this study reached, they were based on obsolete low-dose vitamin D studies, and that they virtually totally neglected the work of the entire science of epidemiology.
Doctors and their patients should not be discouraged by this obsolete review. Patients aged 9 years and older can take 4,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 safely according to the National Academy of Sciences-Institute of Medicine (2011 monograph). The benefits of such a dose will be substantial. The scientific data already accumulated is easily strong enough to support this. Serum 25(OH)D should be monitored regularly in any event, and serum calcium in older adults or anyone where there is a concern about hypercalcemia. It is true that the current NAS-IOM RDA is 600-800 IU/day of vitamin D3, but higher doses seem far more logical and safer now for most people based on studies and the Lappe et al RCT of 1100 IU/day of vitamin D3. Sale and intake of vitamin D2 should end, as there is no solid support for its efficacy against non-skeletal diseases, unlike vitamin D3.
Another supporting clinical trial would be good, but we have a great one in Lappe et al. If we ever decide to do another RCT we should use no less than 4000 IU/d of vitamin D3 and 1000-1250 mg/day of calcium. Such a trial may be impossible, though, because members of the placebo group may eventually take supplements on their own, or human subjects protection committees may not allow depriving anyone of vitamin D at these doses in this emerging era of knowledge about their powerful benefits at appropriate, monitored doses in preventing very serious diseases that we have never before been able to effectively prevent, including breast cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, type 1 diabetes, and much of multiple sclerosis and type 2 diabetes. It is an exciting time for using vitamin D at no less than 4000 IU/day with regular serum 25(OH)D monitoring to prevent these fatal diseases. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brEKx27oHLs

                                                                     

Curcumin/Boswellia shows promise in chronic kidney disease

The July 2013 issue of the Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine reports the finding of researchers at Baylor University of a reduction in a marker of inflammation among chronic kidney disease patients given a combination of Curcuma longa (curcumin) and Boswellia serrata.

The study included sixteen individuals receiving standard care for chronic kidney disease who were not undergoing dialysis. Participants were randomized to receive capsules containing curcumin from turmeric extract plus Boswellia serrata, or a placebo for eight weeks. Blood samples collected before and after treatment were analyzed for plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor-necrosis-factor-alpha (markers of inflammation), and the endogenous antioxidant enzyme glutathione peroxidase, as well as serum C-reactive protein (CRP, another marker of inflammation.)

Participants' blood test results at the beginning of the study revealed increased inflammation and reduced glutathione peroxide levels. At the study's conclusion, those who received curcumin and Boswellia serrata experienced a reduction in interleukin-6 in comparison with pretreatment values, indicating decreased inflammation, while IL-6 values rose among those who received a placebo.

In their discussion of the findings, the authors remark that curcumin and Boswellia serrata have been separately shown to lower interleukin-6 via inhibition of the nuclear factor kappa beta and mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathways. Although tumor-necrosis factor-alpha was not reduced in the current study, they observe that the ACE inhibiting drugs used by the majority of the patients, which are known to lower tumor-necrosis factor-alpha, could have influenced the results.

"Our findings partially support previous research on the anti-inflammatory effects of curcumin and Boswellia serrata," Jennifer J. Moreillon and colleagues write. "Larger randomized trials are needed to further investigate the role of anti-inflammatory supplements in moderate chronic kidney disease. Particularly, it is of great importance to determine how these compounds decrease inflammation and thus, cardiovascular mortality."

Boswellia improves lipids, liver enzymes and long term glucose control in diabetics

Tuesday, February 18, 2014. The results of a trial reported in an article published on February 4, 2014 in the Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders reveal a benefit for supplementation with Boswellia serrata among men and women with type 2 diabetes.

"This study was aimed to investigate the antidiabetic, hypolipidemic and hepatoprotective effects of supplementation of Boswellia serrata in type 2 diabetic patients," write Akram Ahangarpour and colleagues. They enrolled 60 type 2 diabetics between 30 and 48 years of age who were divided to receive three 300 milligram (mg) doses of Boswellia serrata daily or no supplementation for six weeks. Blood samples collected before and after the treatment period were analyzed for lipids, triglycerides, liver enzymes, and fructosamine, which assesses long term glucose control. Participants were questioned weekly concerning whether they experienced side effects or drug interactions.

At the end of six weeks, subjects who received Boswellia had a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels in addition to reductions in total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, fructosamine and the liver enzymes SGPT and SGOT. No side effects or drug interactions were reported. The authors suggest that Boswellia's antioxidant effect and its ability to lower blood glucose could be responsible for the subjects' reduction in fructosamine, which is a measurement of glycosylated proteins.

The current findings are in agreement with those of other studies which have observed improvements in lipids and liver enzymes in association with Boswellia serrata supplementation. "Daily consumption of 900 mg of Boswellia serrata possibly depicts a safe and effective means to decrease the risk factors associated with type 2 diabetic subjects," the authors conclude.

10 Facts About Fluoride You Need To Know

If fluoride is really the panacea for dental disease that it’s been portrayed as, then why is it that the United States is one of the only developed countries that fluoridates their citizens’ drinking water? Hint: It’s not because the other countries aren’t aware of fluoride’s supposed “miracle” powers for your teeth … it’s because they fully realize that adding a known poison to your population’s water supply is probably not a good idea.

Even in North America, water fluoridation has come under increasing scrutiny; since 2010, more than 75 US and Canadian communities have voted to end water fluoridation, and the issue is heating up as more and more people begin to demand water that does not expose them to this highly toxic industrial waste product.
If you’re new to this issue, and even if you’re not, please take 20 minutes to watch Michael Connett, an attorney with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), summarize 10 important facts about fluoride that everyone needs to know.

                                                                               

10 Facts About Fluoride You Need To Know

1. Most Developed Countries Do Not Fluoridate Their Water
More people drink fluoridated water in the US alone than in the rest of the world combined. In Western Europe, for instance, 97 percent of the population drinks non-fluoridated water.
2. Fluoridated Countries Do Not Have Less Tooth Decay Than Non-Fluoridated Countries
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between developed countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not. The decline in tooth decay the US has experienced over the last 60 years, which is often attributed to fluoridated water, has likewise occurred in all developed countries (most of which donot fluoridate their water).
3. Fluoride Affects Many Tissues in Your Body Besides Your Teeth
Many assume that consuming fluoride is only an issue that involves your dental health. But according to a 500-page scientific review, fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can affect your bones, brain, thyroid gland, pineal gland and even your blood sugar levels.2
There have been over 34 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage,3 including lower IQ in children, and studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems, including:

• Increased lead absorption
• Disrupts synthesis of collagen
• Hyperactivity and/or lethargy
• Muscle disorders
• Thyroid disease
• Arthritis
• Dementia
• Bone fractures
• Lowered thyroid function
• Bone cancer (osteosarcoma)
• Inactivates 62 enzymes and inhibits more than 100
• Inhibits formation of antibodies
• Genetic damage and cell death
• Increased tumor and cancer rate
• Disrupts immune system
• Damages sperm and increases infertility

4. Fluoridation is Not a “Natural” Process
Fluoride is naturally occurring in some areas, leading to high levels in certain water supplies “naturally.” Fluoridation advocates often use this to support its safety, however naturally occurring substances are not automatically safe (think of arsenic, for instance).
Further, the fluoride added to most water supplies is not the naturally occurring variety but rather fluorosilicic acid, which is captured in air pollution control devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry. As FAN reported:
“This captured fluoride acid is the most contaminated chemical added to public water supplies, and may impose additional risks to those presented by natural fluorides. These risks include a possible cancer hazard from the acid’s elevated arsenic content, and a possible neurotoxic hazard from the acid’s ability–under some conditions–to increase the erosion of lead from old pipes.”
5. 40% of American Teenagers Show Visible Signs of Fluoride Overexposure
About 40 percent of American teens have dental fluorosis, a condition that refers to changes in the appearance of tooth enamel that are caused by long-term ingestion of fluoride during the time teeth are forming. In some areas, fluorosis rates are as high as 70-80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.
It’s likely this is a sign that children are receiving large amounts of fluoride from multiple sources, including not only drinking water but also fluoride toothpaste, processed beverages/foods, fluoride pesticides, tea, non-stick pans and some fluorinated drugs. So not only do we need to address the issue of water fluoridation, but how this exposure is magnified by other sources of fluoride that are now common.
It’s also important to realize that dental fluorosis is NOT “just cosmetic.” It can also be an indication that the rest of your body, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. In other words, if fluoride is having a visually detrimental effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it’s also damaging other parts of your body, such as your bones.
6. For Infants, Fluoridated Water Provides No Benefits, Only Risks
Infants who consume formula made with fluoridated tap water may consume up to 1,200 micrograms of fluoride, or about 100 times more than the recommended amounts. Such “spikes” of fluoride exposure during infancy provide no known advantage to teeth, but they do have plenty of known harmful effects.
Babies given fluoridated water in their formula are not only more likely to develop dental fluorosis, but may also have reduced IQ scores. In fact, a Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.5 A number of prominent dental researchers now advise that parents should not add fluoridated water to baby formula.
7. Fluoride Supplements Have Never Been Approved by the FDA
The fluoride supplements sometimes prescribed to those who are not drinking fluoridated water have not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention of tooth decay. In fact, the fluoride supplements that the FDA has reviewed have been rejected.
“So with fluoridation, we are adding to the water a prescription-strength dose of a drug that has never been approved by the FDA,” FAN noted.
8. Fluoride is the Only Medicine Added to Public Water
Fluoride is added to drinking water to prevent a disease (tooth decay), and as such becomes a medicine by FDA definition. While proponents claim this is no different than adding vitamin D to milk, fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Many European nations have rejected fluoride for the very reason that delivering medication via the water supply would be inappropriate. Water fluoridation is a form of mass medication that denies you the right to informed consent.
9. Swallowing Fluoride Provides Little Benefit to Teeth
It is now widely recognized that fluoride’s only justifiable benefit comes from topical contact with teeth, which even the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged. Adding it to water and pills, which areswallowed, offers little, if any, benefit to your teeth.
10. Disadvantaged Communities are the Most Disadvantaged by Fluoride
Fluoride toxicity is exacerbated by conditions that occur much more frequently in low-income areas. This includes:

• Nutrient deficiencies
• Infant formula consumption
• Kidney disease
• Diabetes

African American and Mexican American children have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis, and many low-income urban communities also have severe oral health crises, despite decades of water fluoridation. FAN continues:
“The simple fact is that poor populations need dental care, not fluoridation chemicals in their water. The millions of dollars spent each year promoting fluoridation would be better spent advocating for policies that provide real dental care: like allowing dental therapists to provide affordable care to populations with little access to dentists. In short, fluoridation provides good PR for dental trade associations, but bad medicine for those it’s supposedly meant to serve.”
This article was brought to you by Dr. Mercola. Founder of the world’s #1 natural health site.

Fish oil supplements and high fat, low carb diet prevent dementia in new studies

One of the most dreaded diseases of our modern age isn't heart disease or even cancer. Instead, it's Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Now new research is indicating that by consuming fish oil, you can protect yourself from these conditions, revealed Fox News on Jan. 23.
Conducted at the University of South Dakota, the latest study revealed that individuals with higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids may have larger brain volumes in old age. Omega-3 fatty acids are found in fish oil and cold water fish, and the study is highly significant because a reduction in brain volume is linked to dementia and Alzheimer’s.
The research determined that women in the study who had higher levels of omega-3s had larger total brain volumes eight years later. Also important: MRIs revealed that higher levels of omega-3s were associated with increased volume in a specific brain region – the hippocampus.
“The hippocampus is known to be related to the progression of dementia,” said lead author Dr. Bill Harris, professor of medicine at Sanford School of Medicine at the University of South Dakota.
“As it shrinks, dementia becomes more of a problem. So we did find that people with higher omega-3s had higher volumes in the hippocampus – located right in the middle of the head, right at the top of the brain stem.”
What you should know to benefit from the study: Omega-3s consist of three types of fats:

• ALA, found in plant oils such as flax seed and canola
• EPA and DHA, found in marine oils

Although Harris said you can increase your intake of fish or take fish oil supplements, he emphasizes that the benefits are greatest if you enhance your diet with supplements made from EPA and DHA.
“[With ALA], in order for it to become effective, it has to be converted in the body after you eat it to these fish oil omega-3s,” Harris said. “That conversion process is very inefficient in most people, so you don’t really raise your omega-3 index by eating plant-based omega-3s.”
Read the labels carefully. Examples of brands with EPA and DHA include Jarrow Formulas EPA-DHA Balance Odorless and Life Extension Mega EPA/DHA (click for details).
But what about other aspects of your diet? Are there certain foods, in addition to fish, to eat more of - and, conversely, foods to avoid? Neurologist Dr. David Perlmutter says that the answer is yes, referring to studies showing that a high fat, low carb diet can protect your brain from dementia and Alzheimer's disease while boosting weight loss.
He recently talked with Medscape to explore the science behind his best-selling book: "Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar--Your Brain's Silent Killers" (click for details).
Dr. Perlmutter says that a high fat diet that eliminates grains and sugar as well as reducing other carbohydrates can prevent or dramatically reduce your risk of dementia. He cited recent studies that support his views.
"A study published in August 2013 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)[2] was very supportive, indicating that even subtle elevations of fasting blood sugar translates to dramatically increased risk for dementia," noted Dr. Perlmutter.
Referring to that study, he cited the conclusion: "Our results suggest that higher glucose levels may be a risk factor for dementia, even among persons without diabetes."
But there's a difference between associations and causality, pointed out Medscape. Dr. Perlmutter says he recognizes that truth, but believes that the evidence shows "a lower-carbohydrate diet is the right choice for the heart and the immune system. There's no downside to it."
When questioned as to the type of diet or intervention that he recommends to protect or slow the onset of dementia, Dr. Perlmutter doesn't hesitate: A high fat, low carb diet, he contends, is the winner.
"The data show that individuals with lower blood sugar levels have a lower risk for dementia. Therefore, we've got to keep blood sugar low. We do so by using the time-honored dietary intervention of a lower-carbohydrate, higher-fat diet," he declares. Learn more about "Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar--Your Brain's Silent Killers" by clicking here.

                                                                  

In 2013 I wrote a book with the title ''Natural methods of treating cancer''. In this book I suggest that we can cure cancer with an alkaline, low glycemic load/index diet, with high doses of intravenous vitamin C, with high doses of vitamins and antioxidants and with cannabis.
Yesterday I saw an article of BBC News that confirms one of my theories.
 High doses of intravenous vitamin C can be a safe and effective treatment of cancer, as BBC News in 9 February reported. Let's see the article:

Vitamin C keeps cancer at bay, US research suggests

By Helen Briggs BBC News  

High-dose vitamin C can boost the cancer-killing effect of chemotherapy in the lab and mice, research suggests.

Given by injection, it could potentially be a safe, effective and low-cost treatment for ovarian and other cancers, say US scientists.
Reporting in Science Translational Medicine, they call for large-scale government clinical trials.
Pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to run trials, as vitamins cannot be patented.
Vitamin C has long been used as an alternative therapy for cancer.
In the 1970s, chemist Linus Pauling reported that vitamin C given intravenously was effective in treating cancer.

However, clinical trials of vitamin C given by mouth failed to replicate the effect, and research was abandoned.

It is now known that the human body quickly excretes vitamin C when it is taken by mouth.
However, scientists at the University of Kansas say that when given by injection vitamin C is absorbed into the body, and can kill cancer cells without harming normal ones.
The researchers injected vitamin C into human ovarian cancer cells in the lab, into mice, and into patients with advanced ovarian cancer.
They found ovarian cancer cells were sensitive to vitamin C treatment, but normal cells were unharmed.
The treatment worked in tandem with standard chemotherapy drugs to slow tumour growth in mouse studies. Meanwhile, a small group of patients reported fewer side-effects when given vitamin C alongside chemotherapy.
No patent potential Co-researcher Dr Jeanne Drisko said there was growing interest in the use of vitamin C by oncologists.
"Patients are looking for safe and low-cost choices in their management of cancer," she told BBC News. "Intravenous vitamin C has that potential based on our basic science research and early clinical data."
One potential hurdle is that pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to fund trials of intravenous vitamin C because there is no ability to patent natural products.
"Because vitamin C has no patent potential, its development will not be supported by pharmaceutical companies," said lead researcher Qi Chen.
"We believe that the time has arrived for research agencies to vigorously support thoughtful and meticulous clinical trials with intravenous vitamin C."
Dr Kat Arney, science communications manager for Cancer Research UK, said there was a long history of research into vitamin C for treating cancer.
"It's difficult to tell with such a small trial - just 22 patients - whether high-dose vitamin C injections had any effect on survival, but it's interesting that it seemed to reduce the side-effects of chemotherapy," she said.
"Any potential treatment for cancer needs to be thoroughly evaluated in large clinical trials to make sure it's safe and effective, so further studies are needed before we know for sure what benefits high dose vitamin C may have for patients."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26038460