Thursday, 25 June 2015
Saturday, 20 June 2015
By Michael Howerton on February 04, 2014
One of the confounding characteristics of cancer has long been that the body’s usually active patrol against viruses tends to leave deadly cancer cells alone to fester, mutate and spread.
Saturday, 13 June 2015
by RORY CLEMENTS, Daily Mail 12th June 2015
A once-a-day pill has been approved in Britain for use in the early stages of prostate cancer following a massive trial that showed it could reduce the risk of the disease progressing in 42 per cent of men.
Prostate cancer is known to 'feed' on the male hormone testosterone, but Casodex, which is a hormone-based drug, 'starves' the cancer by preventing testosterone getting to it. It works on receptors in the cells.
In the trial, Casodex was used alongside standard treat-ments of surgical removal of the prostate, radiotherapy or merely careful watching of the disease's development, often slow.
Those on the drug fared far better than those on a dummy pill. Many men's biggest fear is that treatment for prostate cancer will make them impotent and kill their love life.
Casodex has a vital advantage over some other hormone treatments in that it significantly reduces the risk of impotence.
Whereas other drugs block production of testosterone, Casodex allows testosterone to remain in the blood stream, but it doesn't allow it to get to the cancer.
Some hormone treatments cut off the supply of testosterone completely and in effect amount to 'chemical castration'. The new study, the world's biggest-yet prostate cancer trial, followed the fortunes of over 8,000 men in 23 countries, including Britain.
Dr Heather Payne, consultant clinical oncologist at the Middlesex Hospital, London, says: 'Most men feel that to be actually doing something to prevent the cancer coming back actually makes you feel more positive.
'And you don't want to have a treatment that is going to make you feel so dreadful that you start wondering whether it's worth having the medication. But this drug is well tolerated and doesn't harm the quality of life.'
Casodex has been used for many years in treating advanced prostate cancer, but this is the first time it has been studied and approved for use in the early stages.
'Before, people would just have the surgery or radiotherapy,' says Dr Payne. 'In this study, they had the surgery or radiotherapy and were then randomly given either Casodex or a placebo to see if that would improve results over the surgery or radiotherapy alone - and the drug did.'
Not only did it stop the disease progressing in 42 per cent of men against those who took the placebo, it also prevented the cancer spreading to the bones in a third of the patients. When the cancer gets to the bones it can be extremely painful.
Widower Alec Taylor, 70, a retired English teacher of Primrose Hill, North London, discovered he had early prostate cancer in 1997 after seeing his GP for a checkup and agreed to go on the Casodex trial.
He learned last week that he was one of those taking the real pill rather than the placebo. He is presently clear of cancer.
He said: 'The bad news was that I had cancer - the good news was that the tumour was very small. My treatment started in January 1998. The radiotherapy went on for 32 sessions over six weeks. I thought I'd go potty.'
'Then they mentioned the Casodex trial and I was told I could go on it if I wanted. I thought it was for the benefit of science, so I agreed to it and stuck it for two years. The great difficulty was to remember to take the things, same time every day. I missed only four.'
Saturday, 30 May 2015
Our 18 months in South Africa, we agree, was the most amazing time of our lives. Beverley and I visited all 10 provinces, and also toured in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana, and Swaziland. You can go on holiday to these places, but living there and experiencing the people and culture for so long, was breathtaking.
Back in the UK now for a short while before the next great adventure, Thailand, and this time it's for 3 years! From Bangkok we can reach out to Australia, India and Japan in just 6 or 7 hours, but within a 1 to 2 hour flight are amazing countries such as Malaysia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Borneo, Burma, China, Vietnam and Singapore, just to name a few. Comparing Johannesburg to Bangkok is difficult, they both have millions of inhabitants and a wet season, but nothing else is the same. Where Jozi is around a mile above sea level, hot and very dry, Bangkok is at sea level, even hotter and extremely humid. Thailand is positively safe when compared to South Africa, but no harm in staying cautious when traveling anywhere abroad these days. When I get there, I'll give you a taste of what it's like.
Thailand has strict rules about criticising the government or royal family and it's not allowed in any way, any where, ever. You can end up in prison quickly, so as a blogger, I intend to stay completely respectful to Thai laws, customs and regulations. All my research indicates that the country is most welcoming and a cultural feast to outsiders. The cost of living is even cheaper than South Africa, but I'm told to buy my clothes and shoes in the UK because they don't cater for men my height.
After Thailand, what next? Well, who can plan ahead more than 3 years?
Friday, 29 May 2015
When I had a routine health check-up eight years ago, my cholesterol was so high that the laboratory thought there had been a mistake. I had 9.3 millimoles of cholesterol in every litre of blood — almost twice the recommended maximum.
It was quite a shock. The GP instantly prescribed statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs that are supposed to prevent heart disease and strokes. For eight years, I faithfully popped my 20mg atorvastatin pills, without side effects. Then, one day last May, I stopped. It wasn’t a snap decision; after looking more closely at the research, I’d concluded that statins were not going to save me from a heart attack and that my cholesterol levels were all but irrelevant.
When I informed my GP of my decision three months later, I wasn’t entirely honest. Rather than say I was sceptical about the drugs, I told my doctor I’d quit the statins because they were causing pain in my arm.
He didn’t bat an eyelid. Evidence from the drug industry published this month – evidence I suspect was heavily reliant on data from the drug industry, as Dr James Le Fanu pointed out on these pages last week – may suggest that side effects are uncommon, but previous studies have found that one in five people on statins suffers adverse side effects, from muscle pain and diarrhoea to memory loss and blurred vision.
The GP simply suggested I try another brand of statin. The sooner the better, he said, given that I’d already been off my prescription for three months. “Hang on,” I said. “Could you give me a blood test first?” When the results came back, he was amazed that my total blood cholesterol was lower than when I’d been on statins. After three months without the pills, it was 5.4mmol/l (5.4 millimoles per litre of blood) compared with 5.7 mmol/l a year earlier.
The only major changes I’d made to my lifestyle since coming off statins were eliminating sugar (including alcohol and starchy foods such as bread) and eating more animal fat. Many experts now believe that sugar is emerging as a true villain in the heart-disease story; while after decades of demonisation, saturated fat has been acquitted of causing heart disease by a recent “meta” analysis of 70 studies by Cambridge University.
Typically, I was eating red meat three or four times a week and enjoying butter, full-fat milk and plenty of eggs. You would have thought that after three months on a diet so high in saturated fat, my cholesterol would have shot back up to pre-statin levels — but no, it came down and has stayed down seven months on. Not only that, but my levels of LDL (so-called bad cholesterol) were also lower than when I’d been on statins, and my ratio of HDL (so-called good cholesterol) to LDL was under four for the first time, an excellent sign, according to medical wisdom.
Not that I cared about any of this.
Yes, it was the statins that originally reduced my cholesterol levels so dramatically. But so what? I believe that high cholesterol has been a scapegoat for too long. Yes, it may, in some circumstances, be an indicator of heart disease but there is no evidence of a causal link. In my view, high total blood cholesterol or high LDL levels no more cause heart attacks than paramedics cause car crashes, even though they are present at the scene.
Just lowering cholesterol with drugs without sorting out the dietary and lifestyle factors that actually cause heart disease is nonsensical. Besides, there are plenty of other, more reliable indicators of heart-disease risk. What further astonished my GP was that on these indicators I was now apparently better off in other ways than when I’d been on statins. My blood pressure was down. For the first time in years, I was slimmer, especially around the belly. My triglycerides — a type of blood fat with a causal link to heart disease — were lower than at any time in the preceding eight years. My fasting blood glucose was at the optimum level, whereas a year earlier it had been too high. My total white blood count — a marker of inflammation — was lower.
My blood test for a marker called glycated haemoglobin (A1c), high levels of which are associated with heart disease and overall mortality, were bang on normal. Finally, my level of c-reactive protein (CRP) — a protein that rises in response to inflammation — was extremely low. So, biochemically, I was in excellent shape, better than when I’d been on the statins. “Have you taken up running?” asked my bemused GP.
No, I’d always run. For years, I’d exercised three times a week, eaten plenty of fish, refrained from smoking and tried to keep my stress levels low. The only thing I’d changed was my intake of sugar and animal fat.
That check-up was seven months ago and now, at 58, I’m not on a single tablet. My GP is happy. I feel better than I have in years and, at the same time, deeply concerned about proposals advising even wider use of statins.
Until 2005, statins were prescribed only to those with at least a 30 per cent or greater risk of having a heart attack within 10 years. This was then reduced to a 20 per cent risk. Now, draft NHS guidelines would have them dished out to those with just a 10 per cent risk — in other words, most men over the age of 50 and most women over the age of 60.
I am a vascular surgeon. Before founding a private clinic in Dorset 11 years ago, specialising in varicose veins, I worked in the NHS for 13 years. Back then, I didn’t question medical guidance on cholesterol, and thought statins were a wonder drug. And so they probably are, for men who have heart disease — not necessarily because they lower cholesterol, but because they may cut other risks such as the inflammation-marker CRP. Exercise, weight loss and omega 3 supplements also lower CRP.
But what about other groups — women, the elderly and people like me who have not been diagnosed with heart disease? The evidence that we will benefit from cholesterol-lowering drugs is ambiguous at best. The 2011 Hunt 2 study, one of the most recent and largest, followed 52,000 men and women in Norway aged 20-74 with no pre-existing heart disease, for 10 years.
The results for women were crystal clear. The lower a woman’s total cholesterol, the greater her risk of dying, either of heart disease or anything else, including cancer. This reflects findings in previous studies.
For men, high cholesterol was associated with heart disease and death from other causes. But so, too, was low cholesterol — below 5mmol/l. Again, this is only an association, not a causal link. A range of between 5mmol/l and 7mmol/l was the optimum level. Guess what? This is already the national average. In addition, numerous studies have linked high cholesterol levels with increased longevity in the elderly.
As for me, I have not been diagnosed with heart disease, and nobody in my family has had a heart attack. However, all four of my paternal uncles and my sister have diabetes. Research from Canada, published last year in the BMJ, has shown that statins raise the risk of diabetes, so that gives me little faith. The controversy over these drugs was reignited last week when Prof Sir Rory Collins from Oxford University warned that doctors’ hesitancy about prescribing them to those at risk could cost lives.
GPs are, by definition, generalists. They don’t have time to read and analyse data from every paper on every medical condition. Even so, in a recent survey by Pulse magazine, six in 10 GPs opposed the draft proposal to lower the risk level at which patients are prescribed statins. And 55 per cent said they would not take statins themselves or recommend them to a relative, based on the proposed new guidelines.
If that doesn’t speak volumes, I don’t know what does.
Monday, 20 April 2015
Saturday, 18 April 2015
Wednesday, 15 April 2015
If you are voting for the first time next month (or at all), please think hard.
I've voted for 45 years, and one thing never changes. The Labour and Conservative parties just swop places at almost every election. They both break the promises they made before the election, they both continue to support a corrupt banking system, the list is endless and NOTHING really ever changes. The NHS declines, as does Education, regardless of who’s in control. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, same shit, different day!
So, if you feel you MUST vote, then please try and avoid these two parties. At least then, you can hold your head high when the results come in, because you dared to try and change things.