First off, I apologize for taking so long to get another post out. I've been sick. Way more sick than I wanted to admit. I was really sick while in Louisiana but didn't want to admit it (big suprise, right?) because I was so happy to see my family. We get back to Ireland and once the nasty cough started to subside there was a nastier sinus infection hiding behind it. Complete with migraines. I swear though, I am coming to the tail end of it. Grapefruit seed extract seems to be doing the butt-kicking!
Back to the sails. Here's how they filled: I was thinking about what my next post would be when I came across an article in one of the national newspapers here. The headline read something like "Cancer down to 'bad luck'", citing an article in the journal "Science"(a reputable medical journal) published on January 2nd. The newspaper article proceeded to say that it doesn't really matter what you do with your life, how you live it or how you take care of yourself, because cancer is a result of bad luck down to random genetic mutations. I was LIVID! (That's the righteous indignation part). "This article is telling people you can sit on your ass, eat ice cream and smoke 20 packs of cigarettes a day cause in the end it doesn't matter - it's all if you're UNLUCKY!?!?!?" I proclaimed rather loudly to my husband James. I started looking up the backgrounds on the researchers and trying to find out who exactly was behind this particular bit.
Johns Hopkins University/Hospital is the source of the article, at least that's where the two scientists who wrote it are based. Specifically, they worked in conjunction with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center. I visited the web page for the center, as well as a few cancer groups listed as benefactors for the study. Nowhere on their sites could I find any information on who their major donors are. This always makes me a little suspicious. Every big charity has big benefactors. Who exactly is funding this research and what exactly is THEIR agenda?
Now, I know Johns Hopkins has a sterling reputation, but over the years I've come across bits and pieces from their research departments that struck me as suspect. I don't have any examples to hand, and I don't have any proof that shady characters are backing some of this research in order to further their own interests (big pharma, anyone?) But that's another post for another time, where I think we should also talk about the research "gold standard" and how it's become rather tarnished...
Next I wanted to read the full text of the journal article and decide for myself what I thought of the methods and results. Guess what? You gotta PAY to read the full text, you can only get the abstract free, which I'm guessing is what the person who wrote the newspaper article did. Because if you only read the abstract (a very brief synopsis of the findings) it does indeed sound like the researchers were saying cancer is all bad luck. Here's the abstract link if you want to read it: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract?sid=f686a451-0e00-4e99-830e-50a2990b84c9
I am my father's daughter. I'm not gonna pay to read the flippin' article either! What's the internet for if you can't find what you need? After a bit of digging, I found a really good article where the researchers explain their findings using simple analogies. And - pffffftttt... there goes the wind...the newspaper article only touched on the bad luck aspect (completely irresponsible journalism if ya ask me!) Here's the interview: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/bad_luck_of_random_mutations_plays_predominant_role_in_cancer_study_shows
As much as they explain themselves, though, there's still a few things that bother me - for one, I don't think or feel like they're saying anything new. I know most of the time with this blog I'm preaching to the choir, because most of you reading it are already health conscious and on a taking-good-care-of-yourself path. So here's where I'm coming from with the nothing new - genetic mutations happen fairly frequently in your body. Think of them as typos, and also know that your body has a really good spelling auto-correct. That these mutations occur in the cells that divide more rapidly and frequently - is that really such a big surprise? Doesn't it make sense that the faster things go the more chance there is for a bit of a slip-up? You know what it makes me think of - do you remember that "I Love Lucy" episode where she went to work in the chocolate factory? Everything was going great while the conveyor belt was moving at a nice slow pace. But when the boss man decided to speed things up? I'm cracking up thinking of poor Lucy with her cheeks and hat full of chocolates!
I'm bothered too that the article makes it seem like there's not a damn thing you can do about what happens in your body. That's not the case. There is a relatively new field of study, and if you haven't read up on it yet you might be as fascinated as I am by the research coming from the field of nutrigenomics, the branch of science which studies the relationship between nutrition and genetics. Why do some people get completely wired on caffeine and others fall asleep? Why does zinc supplementation shorten the length of a cold in some and have no effect on others?
Human beings are more than 99.9% genetically identical. Small changes in the sequence of nucleotides (building blocks of DNA, the letters that make up the genetic code) may occur in the remaining 0.1%. These changes are usually referred to as single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs. These can cause differences in the character or amount of protein encoded by a given gene, thus affecting individual metabolic pathways. It boils down to this - if you know you have an impaired metabolic pathway, then you can choose which foods/supplements you can effectively assimilate for the maximum nutritional benefit. No use really taking a bunch of supplements if you can't process them. Although you will create some really expensive poo :)
No comments:
Post a Comment