Health News Update from Worldwide Sources

A new development in the fight against cancer: Recent research at the University of Haifa found that molecules found in common fungus Ganoderma lucidum aid in suppressing some of the mechanisms involved in the progression of prostate cancer.

The main action of the fungus: disrupting androgen receptor activity and impeding the proliferation of cancerous cells.

Over the past 3-4 decades much scientific research has dealt with the medicinal properties of different fungi. One of the important characteristics of fungi is the ability to fight cancer in a number of ways; however most of the research has been concentrated on how fungi affect the immune system. In this research, conducted by Dr. Ben-Zion Zaidman, under the direction of Prof. Eviatar Nevo and Prof. Solomon Wasser from the Institute of Evolution at the University of Haifa, and Dr. Jamal Mahajna from the Migal Galilee Technology Center, the researchers examined how fungi fight cancer from within cells. "Up to now, research has been based on enhancing the immune system with high-molecular-weight polysaccharides that act through specific receptors in cell membranes. We concentrated our research on low-molecular-weight secondary metabolites that can penetrate the cells and act at the molecular level from within the cell itself," explained Dr. Zaidman.

According to Dr. Zaidman, prostate cancer, one of the most common cancers found among men in the Western World, is controlled by the androgen receptor, especially at the initial stages of development of the disease. Therefore, all of the current medications used to treat prostate cancer work to reduce the production of androgens or to interfere with their function via the androgen receptor.

At the first stage of the research, 201 organic extracts from 68 types of fungi were produced with solvents such as ether, ethyl acetate and ethanol. These solvents are used to select molecules that are small enough to act from within the cells. Of the 201 extracts, 11 were found to deter androgen receptor activity by more than 40%. In further testing, 169 extracts were tested for cancer cell growth inhibition. In this study, 14 extracts were found to be active in inhibiting prostate cancer cells.

From among the active extracts, those from Ganoderma lucidum were found to be the most effective in inhibiting the function of the androgen receptor and controlling vital development of cancerous cells. "The results of this research are particularly interesting from a commercial aspect. Potential possibilities exist to establish research and development of bioactive metabolites from Ganoderma lucidum that could yield an anti-prostate cancer drug," remarked Dr. Zaidman.-University of Haifa

Physicians and bribery: a closer look

at this common medical industry practice

How does your doctor decide which medications to prescribe? Is the decision based on the first-hand testimonies of other patients? Is the decision made after a careful and thorough research of medical journals? Usually not. As Michael T. Murray explains in Natural Alternatives to Drugs, your doctor's decision has nothing to do with medicine: "Most physicians do not make decisions about which drug to use on the basis of scientific research or cost. They base their decision almost entirely on which drug is the most popular choice of their colleagues.

What determines popularity? The effectiveness of the drug company's marketing and advertising efforts. In essence, doctors are often bribed or lied to so that they will prescribe certain medications." Bribery is a danger in any business sector. In medicine, bribes can prove downright deadly; nevertheless, they are shockingly common.

How would you like a bonus of $100,000 per year on top of your already outrageously high salary? Wow, that sounds like a dream, doesn't it? Well, for many doctors, obtaining a bonus of that amount is a reality. These days, the majority of doctors have dived right into the "deep waters of entrepreneurship, where there is always the danger of conflict of interest between patient care and making a buck," as Martin. L. Gross phrases it in The Medical Racket. Entrepreneurship has turned the medical industry into a giant game, where patients serve as the chips, their lives the bets, and jackpots are won by doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.

At times, the bribes are obvious, such as when pharmaceutical companies send physicians on exotic vacations in exchange for listening to lectures about the companies' drugs for a few hours of the day, while the rest of the day is quite literally a day at the beach (or the golf course). The ways in which some hospitals bribe physicians are especially sickening, according to Professor Ann Blake Tracy in Prozac: Panacea or Pandora: "Did you know that some hospitals offer special incentive deals that give doctors valuable gifts like fax machines and car phones, if they schedule surgeries when the hospitals are hurting for business?" Incentives belong in car dealerships, not in doctors' offices.

Now you know why doctors' prescriptions follow trends and why the whole world seems to be on the same drug at the same time. Now you know why so few doctors prescribe alternative medicines for their patients: Nature doesn�t offer bribes.

One big question, however, remains unanswered: How can doctors accept these bribes and look in the mirror afterward? According to Dr. Kassirer, it's all a matter of self-deception: "Physicians know that pharmaceutical companies don't provide these services simply out of altruistic motives, yet they are eager to believe that they can preserve their integrity in the face of such bribes. How then, do they cope with the gross discrepancies between the knowledge that they are being bought and their need to believe that they cannot be bought? Disavowal probably explains much of the mechanism of self-deception. Whereas avowal is a capacity to identify one's true thoughts and motives, disavowal aids self-deception by evading these motives." In other words, corrupt doctors actively try not to question themselves about it, thereby perpetuating their state of self-deception.

Physicians may not overly concern themselves about the bribery they allow to take place, but we as consumers must. Gross asks, "What could be better than stopping the waste of $100 billion (at the very least) in medical, dental and pharmaceutical fraud, and using the money for any good purpose, including lower federal taxes for all? And in the process, cleansing the stain that dishonest doctors have cast on the profession and, by extension, on their honest colleagues?"

Ask yourself that same question. There is no downside to stopping medical corruption right here, right now.

Certain onions may fight cancer

Don't shun pungent onions just because they cause bad breath or teary eyes. Researchers at Cornell University have discovered that strong-tasting onions, such as shallots and Western Yellow varieties, are the highest in antioxidants and contain properties that help prevent the growth of cancerous cells.

The study, published in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, examined the amount of phytochemicals, including phenolics and flavonoids, in shallots and ten onion varieties (2004, vol. 52, no. 22). Phytochemicals, bioactive compounds found in fruits, vegetables, grains, and other plant foods, are known to help prevent cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic illness. Based on an analysis of fresh, uncooked extracts, the Cornell team concluded that shallots and other onions that are stronger in flavor—Western Yellow, New York Bold, and Northern Red—exhibited more antioxidant activity. Conversely, milder onions—Empire Sweet, Western White, and Vidalia—had fewer antioxidant and anticancer effects. Shallots have six times as many phenolics as Vidalias, and Western Yellow varieties have eleven times more flavonoids than Western White.

In addition, researchers determined that onion varieties rich in antioxidants also are especiall y effective against the proliferation of certain types of cancer cells. Shallots, Western Yellow, and Northern Yellow varieties have the strongest antiproliferation effect on liver cancer cells, and New York Bold and Western Yellows were found to be most effective against colon cancer cells.

CHICAGO (AP) - Estrogen pills appear to slightly increase the
risk of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia in
postmenopausal women, a study found, echoing recent findings
involving estrogen-progestin supplements.

The findings contradict the long-held belief that estrogen pills
can help keep older women's minds sharp.

The results came from a government study called the Women's
Health Initiative and were published in Wednesday's Journal of the
American Medical Association.

The research involved nearly 3,000 women, ages 65 to 79, who had
had hysterectomies and had taken daily estrogen-only pills, sold by
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals as Premarin, for an average of about five
years.

Dementia was diagnosed in 28 women who took estrogen, compared
with 19 taking dummy pills. Those results were not statistically
significant because the numbers were so small, but the trend was
troubling, said co-researcher Stephen Rapp, a professor of
psychiatry and behavioral medicine at Wake Forest University.

``Translated to a population of 10,000 older women taking
estrogen alone, there would be an additional 12 cases of dementia
per year,'' said lead author Dr. Sally Shumaker of Wake Forest
University.

In addition, 76 women on estrogen developed mild bouts of
forgetfulness, compared with 58 women in the placebo group.

Pooling those results with the dementia group, the researchers
found estrogen users faced a 38 percent increased risk of
developing dementia or forgetfulness, and those results were
statistically significant.

``No matter which outcome we're looking at, there is no evidence
of benefit,'' Rapp said. The pills offer ``no protection against
dementia, and in fact the likelihood increases on hormone
therapy.''

The research ``succeeded in resolving the important issue that
hormone therapy should not be given to women older than 65 years to
prevent or delay onset of dementia, or with any expectation for
meaningfully improving cognitive function,'' said Dr. Lon Schneider
of the University of Southern California.

Whether different results would be found in younger women or
with lower estrogen doses is unknown.

Dr. Gary Stiles, Wyeth's chief medical officer, called the
results disappointing and said Wyeth is continuing to develop new
products for treating menopause symptoms, which can include hot
flashes and vaginal dryness.

Estrogen-only pills have been linked to uterine cancer. Because
of that, most women who take hormones at menopause have used
combined estrogen-progestin pills.

But use of both types has dropped steeply in the past two years
as the WHI results have trickled out. Worldwide sales of Wyeth's
estrogen and progestin pills fell from $2.1 billion in 2001 to
$1.27 billion last year.

Most doctors now advise women to take the lowest possible dose
for the shortest possible time.

The initial WHI results, announced in 2002, found that Wyeth's
estrogen-progestin pills, sold as Prempro, increased older women's
risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks.

The WHI study was government-funded. The analysis by Shumaker,
Rapp and colleagues was funded by Wyeth and Wake Forest. Shumaker
has served as a consultant for Wyeth.

CHICAGO (AP) - Nearly 10 million U.S. women who have had
hysterectomies are needlessly getting routine Pap tests,
researchers say.

Pap tests, or Pap smears, are used to detect cancer of the
cervix, at the base of the uterus. But in most hysterectomies, the
cervix is removed along with the uterus.

In 1999, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said routine
Pap tests are unnecessary for women who have had both their cervix
and uterus removed for reasons other than cervical cancer. That
recommendation was recently echoed by the American Cancer Society
and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

But Veterans Affairs researchers found that nearly 46 percent of
such women were still getting Pap tests in 2002.

``I actually was quite surprised because, in this case, women
are being screened for cancer in an organ they don't have,'' said
Dr. Brenda Sirovich of the VA Medical Center in White River
Junction, Vt., and Dartmouth College.

Her study appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical
Association.

Hysterectomies are often done in cases of cervical cancer. But
they also are performed for other reasons, including noncancerous
growths and other uterine disorders.

Doctors advise women with intact wombs to have Pap tests yearly,
or sometimes every two or three years if they have had three normal
tests in a row.

Pap tests involve scraping cells from the cervix and examining
them for abnormalities under a microscope. In women without a
cervix, vaginal cells are evaluated, but vaginal cancer is
extremely rare and Pap tests were not designed to detect it,
Sirovich said.

While the tests are relatively inexpensive, these women are
undergoing uncomfortable exams, doctors are being distracted from
more important matters, and lab specialists are spending needless
time analyzing specimens, Sirovich said.

The researchers analyzed nationally representative data on
187,670 women who had undergone hysterectomies.

Excluding women whose cervixes were not removed and those who
had hysterectomies because of cancer, the researchers concluded
that almost 10 million women were being screened unnecessarily.

The researchers said that women and their doctors may not
realize that screening is unwarranted for most women who have had
hysterectomies.

Doctors also ``may be reluctant to risk a patient's trust by
stopping such a well-established test,'' Sirovich said.

Dr. Kenneth Nolan, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at
Tufts University medical school, said the results are not
surprising.

``Patients and physicians get used to doing a Pap smear every
year,'' he said. ``It has been the practice for so many years, it
takes awhile for people to change their habits.''

Kidney-stone advice turned on head -
Study: Low-calcium diet appears to worsen problem

Results from a five-year Italian study may spell the end for the standard advice for
preventing kidney stones. Researchers found the long-recommended low-calcium diet may
actually worsen the painful problem; instead, the secret to avoiding the painful stones appears to
lie in cutting back on salt and protein.

FELICIA BERGER, a mother of three, has been
treated for kidney stones several times. She says the pain of
the stones is far worse than childbirth.

“With labor, the pain with contraction comes and goes.
With a stone, it’s just kind of always at you,” she said.
Kidney stones, which strike millions of Americans, are
crystals made up mostly of calcium that cause extreme pain
by blocking the urinary tract. For years, many doctors have
told patients, including Berger, to eat a low-calcium diet.
But a major study published Wednesday in the New
England Journal of Medicine shows that advice is just plain
wrong, even counterproductive.

“For many patients, a low-calcium diet actually may
have worsened the likelihood of stones as well as put them
at risk for osteoporosis,” said Dr. Ernest Sosa, a
kidney-stone expert at Weill Cornell Medical Center.

In the Italian study, conducted at the University of
Parma, researchers divided 120 men into two groups —
half ate a low-calcium diet, the other half had a diet with
normal calcium that was low in protein and salt. After five
years, those on the low-calcium diet actually had over 40
percent more stones.

Study co-author Dr. Umberto Maggiore explained that
people on a low-calcium diet excrete less calcium in their
urine but more of another substance — oxalate — that
combines with calcium to form most kidney stones.
In addition, salt and one protein common in meat lead
to more calcium in the urine.

About 13 percent of Americans and a much larger percentage of men,
who make up 80 percent of sufferers will get a kidney stone sometime in their
lives. Once a person has a stone there is a 50-50 chance of getting another one
within five years.

Doctors now treat stones by pulverizing them with a
laser device or with ultrasound. Because of genetic makeup
some people cannot help getting stones, but most can.
“For most patients, it’s a preventable event,” Sosa said.

The Best Prevention:
A diet with adequate calcium, but lowered salt and protein;
Eating meals regularly throughout the day;
Most important, drinking lots of water.
It’s advice Felicia Berger is following
“I don’t want that pain again, cause that’s awful,” she said.

Cholesterol drug could help millions-
Statin found to benefit even those with low cholesterol

Millions more people could benefit from a popular cholesterol-lowering drug —
including those with blood cholesterol levels generally considered normal, according to the
largest study ever conducted of the medications. The study of over 20,000 people found that
antioxidant vitamins did not lower heart disease risk, however.

THE STUDY is extremely important in that it confirms
what doctors have long thought, but had never before been
proven: Treatment with the cholesterol-lowering drugs
known as statins can protect a far wider range of people
than was previously thought, including women and the
elderly, experts said.

By far, the most noteworthy finding is that the statins
benefit all people at high risk of cardiovascular disease no
matter how low their cholesterol, said lead researcher Dr.
Rory Collins, a cardiologist at Oxford University in Oxford,
England. High risk persons include those with diabetes, a
previous heart attack or stroke and plaque buildup in the
blood vessels, he said.

“There is no threshold [of blood cholesterol] below
which one shouldn’t treat these patients,” said Collins, who
presented the findings Tuesday at the American Heart
Association’s Scientific Sessions in Anaheim, Calif. “This
really blew us away. It changes everything.”
Collins estimated that 200 million worldwide could
benefit from Zocor.

Dr. Richard Pasternak, director of preventive cardiology
at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and an AHA
spokesperson, agreed. The study clears
up some of the gray area surrounding how to treat the millions of
people with cholesterol levels that are neither very low
nor very high, Pasternak said.

“We know that people with very low cholesterol levels
— an LDL below 80 or total cholesterol below 150 —
don’t need treatment with cholesterol-lowering drugs,” he
said. “On the flip side, patients with very high cholesterol —
LDL and TC above 100 and 200, respectively — are
known to benefit.”

But the latest government guidelines, which came out last May,
left to the doctor the decision of whether to
treat the millions of patients who fell in the middle, as there
really wasn’t clear evidence one way or the other.
“Now this study shows us high-risk patients in this
middle, gray area will indeed benefit,” Pasternak said.
“So-called normal blood cholesterol levels may not be
healthy levels for at-risk people.”

STUDY DETAILS
In the study of 20,536 high-risk people ages 40 to 80,
those given the statin called Zocor were one-third less likely
to suffer a heart attack or stroke than those given placebo.
Those over 70 benefited as much as younger people;
women as much as men.

And people with blood levels of total cholesterol below
200 or of LDL cholesterol below 120 fared as well as those
considered to have ‘high’ levels, Collins reported.
Previous studies of statin drugs have primarily involved
middle-aged men who had suffered heart attacks and had
high cholesterol, Pasternak noted. The U.K. trial, on the
other hand, looked at a wide range of at-risk subgroups.
The five-year Heart Protection Study also showed that
compared with placebo, treatment with Zocor reduced the
risk of:
Death from any cause by 12 percent;
Stroke by 27 percent;
Major vascular events, including heart disease, stroke and
procedures for blocked arteries, such as bypass surgery
and angioplasty, by 24 percent;
Heart attack and stroke by 28 percent in patients with
diabetes without prior heart disease.
Zocor, known scientifically as simvastatin, also proved
safe. Adverse effects, including cancers, strokes due to
bleeding and death, were no more frequent in the Zocor
recipients than in the placebo group.

Dr. Antonio Gotto, dean of the Weill Medical School
at Cornell University in New York, said the safety profile
was noteworthy in light of the fact that Baycol, a statin taken
by 700,000 Americans, was pulled off the market in August
because of muscle destruction linked to at least dozens of
deaths around the world.

“This should help alleviate concerns raised at the time
about the other statins,” he said.
While the researchers studied only Zocor, other statin
drugs may provide similar benefits, Gotto said. “You can’t
just generalize to all stains, but smaller studies
suggest that at least two other drugs in the class
— Merck’s Mevacor and Bristol Myers Squibb’s Pravachol —
provide similar benefits.”
The statins reduce blood cholesterol levels by interfering with a

ANTIOXIDANTS NOT EFFECTIVE
The study also assessed the effects of antioxidant
vitamins by assigning half of the patients to receive
antioxidant vitamins (600 mg vitamin E, 250 mg vitamin C
and 20 mg beta carotene daily) and half to receive dummy
vitamin capsules.
While there was no reduction in heart disease risk
among those taking antioxidants, the study did show the
vitamins are safe, Collins said. The volunteers will continue
to be followed to determine if some benefit emerges later,
he added.
The UK’s Medical Research Council, the British Heart
Foundation, Merck & Co. Inc., maker of Zocor, and
Roche Vitamins Ltd paid for the study.