Do The Acids in Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer?

Breast cancer and cyst formation are at epidemic proportions. At what point can we say, conclusively, that aluminum in antiperspirants is causal? The evidence grows stronger and stronger, largely due to the labors of one dedicated scientist, but she states that absolute proof does not yet exist. So, how much proof do you require before deciding it’s better to be safe than sorry?

Woman’s Hands Over Breasts, by A Funky Damsel (cropped)

by Heidi Stevenson

Antiperspirants: Cause of Breast Cancer? discussed some of Keele Conference scientist Philippa Darbre’s work on the likelihood of a relationship between aluminum in antiperspirants and breast cancer, in particular locations of aluminum in breast tissue and aluminum as an estrogen mimic. This article follows her work into other areas as the noose tightens around antiperspirant aluminum as a serious risk in breast diseases.

As previously noted in Antiperspirants: Cause of Breast Cancer?, Dr. Philippa Darbre’s latest presentation at the Keele Conference was on research demonstrating the ability of aluminum to cause changes in proteins that may lead to cancer metastasis, which can turn a benign tumor into a malignant metastatic cancer. Here is information she’s elicited in earlier work that has led to the study on aluminum’s potential to cause breast cancer metastasis.

Aluminum’s Interference with Iron Homeostasis

As noted in the previous report, aluminum is found in the breasts of women with breast cancer and it’s more prevalent in the region where the majority of cancers occur. Though too much iron is toxic, some is required for health. Transferrin binds iron in body fluids, and ferritin holds onto iron in cells, releasing it as needed. Aluminum can interfere with the function of ferritin and transferrin, thus destabilizing iron homeostasis.

Dr. Darbre worked with Professor Ferdinando Mannello on aluminum content in nipple aspirate fluid (which is exactly what it sounds like). They and the rest of their team obtained nipple aspirate fluid from both women with and without cancer, and examined it for levels of ferritin and transferrin.^[1] They withdrew nipple aspirate fluid (NAF) from the breasts of 16 women without cancer and 19 with cancer. Here’s a table of their results:

First, notice that the amount of aluminum in NAF from cancerous breasts is more than double that of non-cancerous breasts! (268.4 μg/L / 131.3 μg/L) Notice also that ferritin is about five times higher in cancerous breasts (280.0 μg/L / 55.5 μg/L), and transferrin is almost 3 times higher (8.3 μg/L / 28 μg/L).

Milk levels of aluminum are greater than serum levels. That’s very important for nursing mothers to know, so that they can try to find ways ot lessening their aluminum load.

You can see the relative comparison in aluminum, ferritin, and transferrin between cancerous and noncancerous breasts in the bar graph. (Note that a separate graph is used for transferrin because there’s so much less of it that the difference wouldn’t be obvious on the scale used for aluminum and ferritin.)

The scattergraphs to the left definitively demonstrate a genuine connection between aluminum and both ferritin and transferrin. To see if a correlation exists between two sets of points, simply plotting them on a graph is fairly straightforward. If there is a relationship, then you can generally see the points arranging around a line, as you can clearly see is true for aluminum and ferritin in cancer patients (top left graph), and also for aluminum and transferrin in cancer patients.

However, if you look at the bottom two graphs, it’s quite clear that there is no correlation between aluminum and either ferritin or transferrin in non-cancerous patients.

Aluminum’s Association with Breast Cysts

A common problem in women is gross cystic breast disease. Though generally considered benign, it can be quite painful and results in a huge number of doctor visits for treatment, usually by aspiration or, in extreme cases, surgical removal. Occasionally, these cysts can mimic cancer, resulting in testing, biopsies, and worry. These cysts are divided into two types: Type I are more likely to develop into more severe pathologies—meaning cancer—than type II cysts. Women who suffer from type I cysts are more likely to develop them frequently and in large numbers.

Philippa Darbre investigated the potential association between antiperspirant aluminum and gross cystic breast disease.^[2] The report on the study states:

On the basis that antiperspirant formulations are designed to block apocrine sweat ducts of the axilla, and breast cysts result from blocked breast ducts, it has recently been hypothesized that breast cysts might also arise from antiperspirant use.

Darbre and associates examined breast cyst fluid (BCF) from 48 samples, 27 of type I and 21 of type II. These results were compared with samples from blood sera and milk. Result averages are shown in this table published from the study.

The average amount of aluminum found in breast cyst fluid (BCF) was 90.0 μg/L, with 150.0 μg/L in type I cysts (the more cancer-prone type) and 32.0 μg/L in type II cysts. Notice that the amounts of aluminum found in blood sera, healthy and non-cancerous breast tissue in cancerous breasts (GCBD-matched) was significantly lower than found in either type I or II cyst.

Aluminum levels found in general milk samples and specific types of milk (colostrum, intermediate, and mature) are much higher than in healthy or non-cancerous tissues. This might be of serious concern to nursing mothers, as it indicates high levels of aluminum in their breast milk, irregardless of whether they suffer from cystic breast disease.

The amount of aluminum found in both cyst types is dramatically greater than in normal tissues or milk, but particularly notable is that the more cancer-prone breast cysts have extremely high levels of aluminum, averaging about 150.0 μg/L. The graph to the left makes this easy to see. Note, also, that there is no overlap between the lowest amount of aluminum found in type I breast cysts and the greatest amount found in type II breast cysts. Also note that, in the table above, the p-value is less than .0001, indicating that there is almost no likelihood that the results were obtained by chance.

Do Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer?

Writing for Elsevier’s Encyclopedia of Environmental Health 1st Edition, Dr. Philippa Darbre discusses the fact that more and more breast cancer is found in the upper outer quadrant (UOQ) of the breast.^[3] Although it had been suggested that this might be a result of weight gains, the facts don’t fit that idea. She wrote:

Numerous clinical studies dating back to the 1920s have shown that the UOQ of the breast is the most frequent site of carcinoma, but strangely the relative proportion
of breast cancer in the UOQ appears to rise chronologically with the year of publication.

She presented the following graphs to help explain:

The relative incidence of breast cancer in the upper outer quadrant (UOQ) of the breast, as reported in the scientific
literature, appears to rise chronologically with year of publication from 1928 to 1994. Using a single study population of  England and Wales, the relative percentage of UOQ breast cancer has risen annually on a linear basis between 1979 and 2000, and in independent records in Scotland, a similar trend was noted between 1980 and 2001.

These graphs are pointing out that the relative rate of increase in cancer of the upper outer quadrant keeps increasing at a linear rate, year after year, in comparison to all other breast cancer locations. The top bar shows this in terms of publications that have reported on the phenomenon since 1928, when UOQ cancers were 30.9% of all breast cancers, but had reached 60.7% in 1994. Fat cannot be to blame for the increase in UOQ cancers, because it cannot explain why it would increase so consistently relative to other breast cancer locations.

There are certainly other carcinogenic chemicals in the environment that could be playing a factor in breast cancer increases. Dr. Darbre discusses them, including parabens, bisphenol A, phthalates, polycyclic musks, triclosan, and ultraviolet light filters (sun screen lotions and cosmetics). However, the amount of aluminum found in antiperspirants is very high, and it’s applied on and next to breast tissue and in the area of the greatest increase in cancer, the upper outer quadrant.

Furthermore, aluminum in antiperspirants is left on the skin and is absorbed through the skin. Antiperspirants work by combining with wastes in perspiration ducts, thus plugging them, limiting detoxification capability.

Dr. Darbre’s still unpublished study presented at the last Keele Conference demonstrates that aluminum has the ability to create changes in breast tumors, making them metastasize. It stands in addition to an already extensive body of work building the case of antiperspirants’ adverse effects. She is, though, the first to clarify that a cause and effect connection between antiperspirants and breast cancer has not yet been demonstrated. Nonetheless, her research keeps drawing the noose tighter.

The question you must answer is: How absolute must the proof be before you want to take action to prevent potential harm from a product, especially one that is not necessary for life? It’s quite obvious that our regulatory agencies are not moving to protect us, though the odds of a woman developing breast cancer are now about 1 in 8—and more and more men are also developing it.

Surely the precautionary principle says that the information now available on an association between antiperspirant aluminum and breast cancer is far more than required to stop using antiperspirants until shown to be safe. It is, though, up to you to decide how much risk you’re willing to accept.

Sources:

1. Analysis of aluminium content and iron homeostasis in nipple aspirate fluids from healthy women and breast cancer-affected patients; Journal of Applied Toxicology; Ferdinando Mannello, Gaetana A. Tonti, Virginia Medda, Patrizia Simone, Philippa D. Darbre; DOI: 10.1002/jat.1641
2. Concentration of aluminium in breast cyst fluids collected from women affected by gross cystic breast disease; Journal of Applied Toxicology; Ferdinando Mannello,a Gaetana A. Tonti and Philippa D. Darbre; DOI: 10.1002/jat.1384
3. Personal Care Products and Breast Cancer; Elsevier; Encyclopedia of Environmental Health 1st Edition; P. Darbre;

Tagged aluminum antiperspirants, aluminum breast cancer, aluminum breast cysts, Analysis of aluminium content and iron homeostasis in nipple aspirate fluids from healthy women and breast cancer-affected patients, antiperspirants breast cancer,antiperspirants breast cysts, Concentration of aluminium in breast cyst fluids collected from women affected by gross cystic breast disease, darbre antiperspirant research, darbre cancer research, do antiperspirants cause breast cancer, does aluminum cause breast cancer, Personal Care Products and Breast Cancer, philippa darbre, precautionary principle, science,scientist philippa darbre

More about → Do The Acids in Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer?

Suntans Have Nothing To Do With Cancer, But Acidic Sunscreens Do!

Print

The CDC’s new report continues the myth that sunscreens protect you from cancer, again demonstrating how little reality exists in their fear mongering.

by Heidi Stevenson

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has just come out with its annual be-afraid-of-the-sun report in its efforts to keep the sunscreen business profitable.

The report starts out with fear mongering about the dangers of skin cancer and then goes on to say:

The results indicated that although protective behaviors such as sunscreen use, shade use, and wearing long clothing to the ankles have increased in recent years, sunburn prevalence remains high, with 50.1% of all adults and 65.6% of whites aged 18–29 years reporting at least one sunburn in the past 12 months. These results suggest that additional efforts are needed to identify and implement effective strategies targeting younger adults to improve their sun protective behaviors and prevent sunburn and ultimately skin cancer. [Emphasis mine.]

Imagine that! If you go into the sun, you should wear long clothing down to your ankles! One must wonder how they forgot to point out that arms can also be exposed to the sun, requiring their covering, too. And what about feet and hands? Is it safe to expose them, or should they be covered, too?

The Absurdity

The CDC’s report is obviously absurd, but the most ridiculous thing of all is that they never mention that the most effective protection against sun-induced skin cancer is a tan! The risk is from sunburns, not tans. People with tans are much less likely to get burned. Of course the CDC knows that. It’s evident in their own report:

Sunburn typically occurs after intermittent exposure, and the risk for melanoma increases with an increasing number of sunburns during all periods of life. [Emphasis mine.]

Sunburns, not tans, are what the CDC associates with melanoma. In fact, the data they use in their report is related to sunburns, not tans or even total amount of time in the sun:

To evaluate trends in sunburn and sun protective behaviors among persons aged 18–29 years, CDC and the National Cancer Institute analyzed data from the 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). [Emphasis mine.]

Notice that the single best way for most people to protect themselves from sunburn, getting in the sun often to get and keep a tan, is completely ignored.

Clearly, the CDC knows that suntans are unrelated to the skin cancer, melanoma, and one can probably assume that they have some awareness that suntans come from the sun. So why the fear mongering? Why aren’t they interested in promoting the health benefits of the sun? It’s well known that sunning provides us with Vitamin D, which is a critical nutrient for many processes in the body. Severe lack of Vitamin D is well known to be the cause of ricketts and its bone deformities. Its deficit is also becoming well accepted as related to a range of health problems, including breast, colon, and prostate cancers.

Yet, this agency that supposedly exists to help protect our health completely ignores the health-providing benefits of the sun.

Sunscreens

Then, there’s that whole issue about whether sunscreen lotions prevent melanoma in any case, as the Environmental Working Group points out in “Sunscreens Exposed: Nine Surprising Truths”. The fact is that the evidence supporting the protective effects of sunscreens is limited and opposed by research showing it not to be true.

Let’s not forget the fact that most sunscreen lotions are, themselves, likely the cause of some cancer. They may even cause melanoma, the cancer people use them to prevent. They contain toxic chemicals, such as oxybenzone, PABA, benzophenone-3, homosalate, octyl-methoxycinnamate (OMC) and 4-methyl-benzylidene camphor (4- MBC).

So, truly we’re left with only one reasonable way to protect ourselves from sunburns, and that is simply to get suntans. While there are a few people who are limited in their sun exposure by not tanning, most people can spend good sun time. Even those with a tendency to burn can—and should—get out in the sun.

It should be noted that Vitamin D production is inversely related to how much melanin is in the skin. People with dark skin require more sun time, and those whose skin is light require significantly less. Therefore, dark-skinned people in high northern latitudes need significantly more sun exposure.

Why?

So why is this agency, which supposedly exists to promote health, doing something as stupid as trying to keep people out of the sun and keep them slathering toxic chemicals on their skin? We can find out by first looking at who owns some of the biggest sunscreen products:

• Coppertone is owned by Schering-Plough, a pharmaceutical corporation.
• Neutrogena and Aveeno are owned by Johnson & Johnson, a pharmaceutical corporation.
• Olay is the biggest skin care company in the world.
• Vanicream is owned by Pharmaceutical Specialties Incorporated.
• Bull Frog is owned by Chattem, a pharmaceutical corporation.
• LaRoche and Ombrelle and are owned by L’Oreal.

Major multinational corporations, including major pharmaceutical ones, are invested in sunscreens. Who really controls the CDC and other agencies that are supposedly for the public’s benefit? Those, and other, multinational corporations.

Thus, no matter how distorted and twisted and dishonest their arguments must be, the CDC and others continue to promulgate the lie that sunscreens can protect you from cancer. The advice to cover up in the sun? That’s just a smokescreen to hide the real goal of promoting their benefactors.

Sources:

• Sunburn and Sun Protective Behaviors Among Adults Aged 18–29 Years — United States, 2000–2010
• Sunscreens Exposed: Nine Surprising Truths
• Is Your Sunscreen Doing You More Harm Than Good?
• CDC: Americans Carry Body Burden of Toxic Sunscreen Chemical

More about → Suntans Have Nothing To Do With Cancer, But Acidic Sunscreens Do!

The Revolving Door Between Big Government and Big Business!

A series of Venn diagrams shows visually how strong the links are between the US Government and big business: dozens of people moving to and fro between top positions in government and in politically-connected corporations.

It is blatant conflicts of interest like these that lead to regulatory capture, corruption and crony capitalism. The industries covered in this analysis are: Big Oil, Comcast, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Media, Monsanto and Pharmaceuticals.

Original article on Tech Dirt website

More about → The Revolving Door Between Big Government and Big Business!

Mark Lichty pH Miracle Prostate Cancer Testimonial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D6MHkRhLhs&list=PLE6xKC88KAtj_NzuXYSMSgkoZ-tya4-ta&index=24

Most men diagnosed with prostate cancer die of other acidic causes, study finds.

A new international study, published Friday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found that most men who live with prostate cancer tumours die from other causes, suggesting that a large number of the tumours are not life-threatening.

The study was led by Dr. Alexandre Zlotta, Director of Uro-Oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital’s Murray Koffler Urologic Wellness Centre and a scientist with Mount Sinai’s Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute.

The Mount Sinai team underwent a posthumous study of 320 prostate glands from 220 Caucasian Russian men around 62 years of age and 100 Asian men with an average age of 68.

The Russian men shared similar traits with Caucasian men living in North America, such as reduced sun exposure and a high-fat diet, both of which have been associated with prostate cancer. Researchers also looked at Japanese Asian men, who have a lower rate of the disease and eat a different diet.

While none of the men were known prostate cancer patients, the study showed that nearly 50% harboured prostate cancer at the time of their deaths, but nonetheless died of other causes.

In North America, men with clinically significant prostate cancer are offered radical treatment usually in the form of surgery or radiation – and there are heavy personal tolls to these treatments
What made these two populations worth studying is that researchers found that despite differences in mortality rates, genetics and lifestyle factors, the rates of prostate cancer were similar. In fact, the prostate glands from Asian men showed a more aggressive form of the disease. North American doctors would normally recommend surgery or radiation treatment for the tumor characteristics found in the autopsied prostates; however, the men died of other causes.

“In North America, men with clinically significant prostate cancer are offered radical treatment usually in the form of surgery or radiation – and there are heavy personal tolls to these treatments,” Dr. Zlotta said in a statement. “But our study shows that in Japan, despite completely different lifestyles, despite a much lower incidence of clinically detected prostate cancer, and a much lower mortality rate due to prostate cancer compared to men in North America, Asian men have similar prevalence of the disease – but they aren’t dying from it.”

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/14/1050

More about → Mark Lichty pH Miracle Prostate Cancer Testimonial

The Radiation from WiFi is Cancer Causing!

The following study out in 2011 support the logical conclusion that being exposed to WiFi (and more than often many sources of multiple WiFi signals) 24/7 is a potential risk for a cancerous condition. Today we are all literally drowning in an acidic sea of EMFs. The long-term exposure to microwave radiation from WiFi provokes the cellular transformation of healthy body and blood cells into cancerous cells leading to a cancerous condition or diagnosis.

Exp Oncol. 2011 Jun;33(2):62-70.

Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems.

Yakymenko I, Sidorik E, Kyrylenko S, Chekhun V.

Source

R.E. Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of NAS of Ukraine, Vasylkivska str. 45, Kyiv 03022, Ukraine. yakymenko@btsau.net.ua

Abstract

In this review we discuss alarming epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of long term exposure to low intensity microwave (MW) radiation. Recently, a number of reports revealed that under certain conditions the irradiation by low intensity MW can substantially induce cancer progression in humans and in animal models. The carcinogenic effect of MW irradiation is typically manifested after long term (up to 10 years and more) exposure. Nevertheless, even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among population living nearby. In addition, model studies in rodents unveiled a significant increase in carcinogenesis after 17-24 months of MW exposure both in tumor-prone and intact animals. To that, such metabolic changes, as overproduction of reactive oxygen species, 8-hydroxi-2-deoxyguanosine formation, or ornithine decarboxylase activation under exposure to low intensity MW confirm a stress impact of this factor on living cells. We also address the issue of standards for assessment of biological effects of irradiation. It is now becoming increasingly evident that assessment of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on physical (thermal) approach used in recommendations of current regulatory bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, requires urgent reevaluation. We conclude that recent data strongly point to the need for re-elaboration of the current safety limits for non-ionizing radiation using recently obtained knowledge. We also emphasize that the everyday exposure of both occupational and general public to MW radiation should be regulated based on a precautionary principles which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure.

PMID:

   

21716201

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201

More about → The Radiation from WiFi is Cancer Causing!

The Premature 'Death Belt' in America.

Living in a high-poverty area often means a lifetime of struggle with underperforming public schools, limited job opportunities, higher crime rates, and poor nutrition, health care and housing — all of which can add up to a shorter, sicker retirement.

Americans who live in the South can expect to live fewer healthy years past 65 than those who live in other parts of the country, according to a new report from the CDC. Health disparities among seniors in their final years align closely with profound geographical differences in poverty. The region where more than 30 percent of people live in high-poverty areas — dubbed the "poverty belt" by The Atlantic's Richard Florida, falls right over the states with the lowest healthy life expectancies. As inequality in the U.S. climbs steadily, this public health crisis may only expand.  Why?  Look at what the majority of the people who live in the 'pverty belt' eat and drink!  It is all acidic and disease causing, especially fried chicken!

Infographic by Jan Diehm for The Huffington Post.

More about → The Premature 'Death Belt' in America.