What really causes breast cancer: estrogen dominance or microbes?
Microbes. More specifically viruses.
I had this discussion with someone who told me that estrogen dominance causes breast cancer. But based on my reading of the following articles, I have long believed that breast cancer or any cancer for that matter is caused by microbes.
http://www.cancertutor.com/Articles/What_Causes_Cancer.html
There are a number of myths in this article:
-The author claims that genetic damage does not cause cancer. Actually this can lead to cancer. The reason that the same genetic damage can occur in the same area with smoking is simple. Certain chemicals can target specific areas. For example, the carcinogenic tar gets stuck in the lungs. It does not go from the lungs to the liver, the colon, the brain, etc. Being that the tar sticks in the same place smokers tend to get cancer in the same place.
-The author also claims that everyone has cancer cells. This is another very persistent myth. People can have excess cellular division, such as benign tumors or keloids. This does not mean they have cancer. Cancer cells have a completely different morphology. And if everyone did have cancer cells then we we would see greatly increased numbers in the cases of cancer since cancer cells are very good at evading the immune system. In addition, if everyone had cancer cells according to the claim then anyone with a suppressed, or no immune system would quickly succumb to cancer. This is nowhere near the case though. Look at David "the bubble boy". He was born without an immune system, yet he lived for a while until he was given a bone marrow transplant that infected him with Epstein Barr virus (EBV) that caused the B cell lymphoma that killed him.
-Changing the terrain to an alkaline environment will cure cancer is another common myth. This is based on the other myth that acids cause cancer and cancer cells are acidic. Acids do not cause cancer. In fact quite a few acids have been shown to have anti-cancer properties. For example betulinic acid and chlorogenic acid. And the pH inside cancer cells is alkaline, which helps promote their growth. In addition, it would be impossible to maintain a particular pH in the body consistently since the body maintains its pH. If you try to make it more acid or more alkaline the body simply uses buffers to get the pH back to normal except in very rare cases.
I was at a lecture once where they had a doctor spend two hours claiming the cause of cancer were lactic and oxalic acids. Yet the handout of his recommended diet included spinach and kale that both contain the oxalic acid he claimed caused cancer. Even the cancer formula Essiac contains rhubarb root, which is full of oxalic acid. Unfortunately myths like these keep getting propagated because people keep repeating what they read in some sales site rather than actually researching if the claims are even true to begin with.
-Next the author claims that cancer cells generate "virtually zero ATP molecules". Actually they produce two ATP per cycle. This is lower than normal cells, but not "virtually zero". And the author has it backwards that the low ATP causes the cells to "revert to fermentation". It is the fact that the cells are fermenting to begin with that leads to the lower ATP production.
-Everyone does not have H. pylori as the author claims. in fact, the author is contradicting himself. He claims that an acidic environment causes the H. pylori to become aggressive. But H. pylori is killed by acidity, which is why it secretes highly alkaline ammonia to protect itself. Furthermore, how would the author explain the formation of cancers outside the stomach since this is where H. pylori is found. The bacteria cannot enter the brain for example, so how could someone get brain cancer?
-The funniest part was the author states that microbes secrete highly acidic mycotoxins while referring to H. pylori. First of all H. pylori secretes ammonia, which is highly alkaline. Secondly, mycotoxins are produced by molds and fungi. H. pylori is neither, it is a bacteria.
There are a number of other errors, but I am not going to address all of them.
http://www.cancertutor.com/Articles/Advanced_Cancer_Theory.html
This link is pretty much a repeat of a lot of the same misinformation.
Another contradiction though is that the author claims that as the pH goes more acidic within a cancer cell the larger the microbe grows. Problem with this claim is that it has been demonstrated that the interior of cancer cells are alkaline, which helps them to survive and proliferate.
What is your take on this? It seems to be like a "chicken or egg" question. I would really like to understand the relation between estrogen dominance and microbes. Does estrogen dominance happen first and cause microbes to proliferate or is it the other way around? Sorry if this is such a newbie question, I am just trying to learn.
Estrogen does not cause the cancer, it is the "fertilizer" that helps cancer cells flourish once the cancer is initiated. Although, other hormones such as progesterone can also promote cancer by activating cancer viruses and stimulating progesterone receptors.
Thanks, Hv! Your reply is so eye-opening for me!
By the way, is it alright to give Vitex to a breast cancer patient to counteract estrogen dominance? Is Vitex safe? What happens if a breast cancer patient is given Vitex but the patient is not really estrogen dominant (i.e. it was just mistakenly thought that she was), will it cause harm?
Keep in mind that vitex raises progesterone, which is a precursor for estrogen. Here is an old post with a graph showing this:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1526811#i
Phytoestrogen sources are a better choice since they lock up estrogen receptors antagonizing estrogens.
Another good choices is rice bran. Rice bran feeds the flora that break down estrogen metabolites, provides phytoestrogens, binds to unconjugated estrogens. provides B vitamins for estrogen breakdown and provides anti-cancer gamma oryzanol.
I also recommend cleansing the liver with bitters to break down excess hormones and more B vitamins or trimethylglycine (TMG) to help the liver in breaking down excess hormones.
Thanks, Hv! You're making me want to return all the Vitex that I bought. :-) I wish I knew this before I bought them.
My logic for wanting to try Vitex was based on my reading about John Lee, M.D., who advised increasing progesterone levels to balance estrogen when it is dominant.
There are a number of things I disagree with Dr Lee. For example, I don't like the fact that he pushed progesterone creams without mentioning the side effects/risks of the progesterone or the fact that it builds up in the tissues.
Based on his advice, I thought progesterone was supposed to stop estrogen dominance and that it doesn't matter how much estrogen you have as long as the levels of estrogen and progesterone are balanced.
To an extent. Progesterone will antagonize estrogen, but it is also a precursor for estrogen. If enough of the built up progesterone converts to estrogen then you would still be back to the same initial problem of more estrogen than progesterone to control it.
Here are some selected Q & A's from the site http://www.power-surge.com/transcripts/johnlee.htm
:
[quote]
Welcome to Power Surge, Dr. Lee. Let me begin by asking about the perpetuation of the myth that all women's problems are due to a lack of estrogen and not enough
focus is placed on the importance of progesterone. Did you originate the theory of "estrogen dominance," and can you explain exactly what estrogen dominance is?
Dr. John R. Lee: Greetings. It's a pleasure to be here. The important principle that we must all observe is the principle of balance. In particular, the balance between
estrogen and progesterone implies that it is not the absolute amount of either hormone present, it is the balance between the two. Mother Nature's plan is that
estrogen was never produced totally in the absence of progesterone. When estrogen is unopposed by progesterone, it has dangerous side effects.
And again, what about the side effects of progesterone and progesterone dominance?
When estrogen is dominant in the balance, those side effects will occur. Therefore progesterone supplementation is needed to restore balance.
This is where I really disagree. Supplementing is way different than allowing the body to generate its own. Progesterone creams allow progesterone to build up in the fat tissue leading to progesterone dominance and its side effects. Just like any other hormone replacement therapy levels cannot be controlled and thus the risk of side effects is much greater. If there is an imbalance then there are natural and safer ways to correct the imbalance rather than risking imbalance from synthetic pharmaceutical progesterone supplementation.
LSA82383: Dr. John, this is Lisa Peterson from MN. So glad to have you in this chat! I know from what I have learned from you that I would not hesitate to use natural
progesterone
The progesterone is not natural. It is synthesized in a lab. The fact that they keep blatantly lying about this fact calls the rest of their claims in to question.
with any hormonal cancers. Are there any mainstream studies going on right now that would indicate to any oncologists the safety and effectiveness of treating with natural progesterone?
The problem is that the studies are based on whether or not progesterone will stimulate cancer growth directly. Not is progesterone will cause cancer by activating the HPV virus associated with breast and other cancer formations, or stimulated growth from the estrogen that progesterone is the precursor for. It is like claiming that testosterone will cure breast cancer since it is a estrogen antagonist even though it is also an estrogen precursor converted in to estrogen by the enzyme aromatase.
Dr. John R. Lee: Hi Lisa! Good to hear from you! My sister from MN is visiting to escape the cold. Yes, I would refer you to Bent Formby. He has a paper published in the journal -- hold on I'm looking for the specific reference to give you -- and he's coming out with two more papers in the near future. Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 1998, Vol. 28, page 360, June. "Progesterone inhibits growth
and induces apoptosis in breast cancer cells: Inverse effects on Bcl2 and P53." That's the title of the article.
TSWAHL: Is the use of progesterone cream safe after breast cancer and is it effective if the tumor was PR-neg?
Dr. John R. Lee: The test for progesterone receptor presence or absence is not a very accurate test. Progesterone receptors are stimulated to be made by estrogen itself. It is highly unlikely that any tumor driven by estrogen would have no cells that lack progesterone receptors. If there in truth were no progesterone receptors then it could do no harm because the cell could be unaware that any progesterone is present. Chances are the receptors are there, and therefore the cell will respond to the message of progesterone which is a prevention against breast cancer.
If a phone line came by your house, but you didn't have a phone, you would be unaware of it -- that's how it is with progesterone. The message of progesterone to breast cells is to stop them from becoming breast cancer cells. So therefore, there is no reason ever to not give progesterone to try to help someone prevent or stop breast cancer.
I can think of several reasons that have already been brought up.
In 3,000 breast cancer biopsies Dr. Zava found only one in which there were truly no progesterone receptors. It's a rare congenital defect.
BOZA3: Many symptoms pointing to estrogen dominence, should I discontinue the estrogen and use natural progesterone cream? Had total hysterectomy 14 months ago, boderline low malignancy ovarian cancer.
Ovarian cancer is another HPV associated cancer, and progesterone activates the HPV virus.
Dr. John R. Lee: You're best off gradually reducing the estrogen so that you don't get hot flashes. But then you can try just progesterone and see how you do. Most women do fine with just progesterone. We don't have the specific
research in yet, but all indications are that progesterone is protective against cancer in general. If I had cancer of any kind I would use it, and would avoid the estrogen. You can get an AMAS test to make sure the malignancy hasn't recurred.
[/quote]
In addition, here's an article by John Lee, M.D.:
http://www.rethinkingcancer.org/resources/magazine-articles/13_5-6/natural-pr...
What do you think of this?
Again, there is a lot that Lee left out about the dangers that include various cancers.
Is the use of Vitex to increase progesterone levels and balance estrogen too risky and not advisable, or are you merely saying that there are better alternatives than Vitex but Vitex can still be useful as long as the patient truly has estrogen dominance?
Vitex in low enough doses would not significantly increase progesterone. But people tend to think if a little is good more must be better. Over all phytoestrogens are going to be safer for estrogen antagonism.
Here is an article that you will may find interesting on the subject:
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/content/13/3/717.long
Thanks, Hv! I'm beginning to see the issues now. I've been Googling the other side - the opinions *against* progesterone. I am alarmed in particular by this article:
http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/progesteronecancer.html#cancer_risks_revealed
It says that progesterone is more carcinogenic than estrogen! Is that true? I wonder if these researchers are funded by Big Pharma and so are creating biased or untrue results.
I have not looked in to all the research on it but yes, progesterone is carcinogenic. One thing I did not see them mention is the fact that progesterone activates cancer causing HPV viruses. Therefore, progesterone can initiate cancers as where estrogen only appears to stimulate the growth of already initiated cancers.
I am glad they also brought up that commercial progesterone is not "natural". The term "natural progesterone" has been pet peeve of mine for quite a while since the word natural is only used to give the product a sense of safety.
[Quote Hv]
Progesterone will antagonize estrogen, but it is also a precursor for estrogen. If enough of the built up progesterone converts to estrogen then you would still be back to the same initial problem of more estrogen than progesterone to control it.
[/Quote Hv]
For elderly women who have very little progesterone, such as my aunt (73 years old) who has estrogen dominant breast cancer, does this apply?
Yes. Just because a woman is past menopause this does not mean she is not producing estrogen. And in order to produce estrogen the women must first have progesterone that will eventually convert to estrogen.
What determines how much progesterone is converted to estrogen?
Progesterone must go through various steps to become estrogen. One of those steps in the production of testosterone. Then an enzyme known as aromatase converts the testosterone in to estrogen. The amount of estrogen produced will depend on the level of aromatase activity.
If the progesterone is from the body's own production (i.e. induced by Vitex and not coming from external sources), doesn't the body regulate the conversion so that not too much is converted to estrogen as to be dangerous?
Vitex will raise progesterone, but the body will do this slowly. And in smaller doses the vitex will not stimulate the production of large amounts of progesterone. The body may convert some of this in to estrogen if there is a little excess, but this is still vastly different than the major and sudden surge of progesterone that progesterone creams cause.
[Quote Hv]
Supplementing is way different than allowing the body to generate its own. Progesterone creams allow progesterone to build up in the fat tissue leading to progesterone dominance and its side effects. Just like any other hormone replacement therapy levels cannot be controlled and thus the risk of side effects is much greater. If there is an imbalance then there are natural and safer ways to correct the imbalance rather than risking imbalance from synthetic pharmaceutical progesterone supplementation.
[/Quote Hv]
Vitex simply induces the body to produce more progesterone on its own. Does it have these side effects, too?
If in high enough doses yes. This is why I don't recommend high doses of vitex. High doses of vitex have been traditionally used to suppress the libido, thus the other name chaste tree berry. The decrease in libido is from the increase in progesterone.
Could Vitex probably induce too much progesterone production in my aunt as to make her progesterone dominant?
Not unless she is taking large doses, which is not very likely. The recommended doses on bottles of capsules is actually too low for this.
[Quote Hv]
The progesterone is not natural. It is synthesized in a lab. The fact that they keep blatantly lying about this fact calls the rest of their claims in to question.
[/Quote Hv]
I thought it was Progestin that was synthetic, not the bioidentical progesterone processed out of diosgenin plant sterol from wild yam, which is what is referred to as "natural progesterone"?
Both are synthetics. Just because the progesterone starts out from a natural source this does not mean it is natural. If it were then we would also have to consider plastics made from natural oil as natural. Or sucralose could be considered natural since it is made using natural sugar that then goes through a 5 step chlorination process. The sterols from the yam or other sources are chemically altered in to the progesterone making it a synthetic.
[Quote Hv]
Ovarian cancer is another HPV associated cancer, and progesterone activates the HPV virus.
[/Quote Hv]
Does progesterone do this only if it is dominant or even if it is not?
Progesterone can do this even without progesterone dominance. There is more to cancer though such as immune suppression. Simply activating cancer viruses does not guarantee cancer growth.
[Quote Hv]
Vitex in low enough doses would not significantly increase progesterone. But people tend to think if a little is good more must be better.
[/Quote Hv]
How long would it be safe to take Vitex?
It is not as much the time as the amount.
The Vitex that I bought is 400 mg per capsule. I bought 3 bottles with 100 capsules per bottle for a total of 300 capsules. I'm planning a dosage for my aunt of 3 capsules daily for 10 weeks. After 10 weeks, the dosage is to be reduced to one capsule daily. Calculating, it would take 23 weeks to consume the 3 bottles. Is this safe enough? If not, what dosage and length of time would you suggest?
That is perfectly safe. Three capsules a day is actually a very low dose.
In summary, the most important thing I'd like to know is, should I return the Vitex (which I would not like to do at this point) or can it still be useful?
Useful? To a very small extent. There are many things that can be done that would be so much more beneficial such as the bitters and B vitamin sources or TMG to help with lowering estrogen levels. And building up the flora to assist with the breakdown of estrogen metabolites so they are no reabsorbed.