Last week I wrote about the benefits of turmeric (the main ingredient in curry powder) in protecting the skin from damage caused by radiation therapy. But turmeric itself may have anticancer effects that could benefit everyone. If turmeric is protective against cancer, as many believe, we might expect to see lower rates of cancer in countries where it is consumed in abundance. Such a country is the island nation of Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), which not only grows turmeric but is a major importer of the spice from nearby India. The daily diet of Sri Lanka is primarily rice and curries of various sorts, mostly vegetable and fish.

Cancer is definitely on the rise in Southeast Asia but is still much lower than in the West. In Sri Lanka, the age-adjusted cancer mortality rate per 100,000 is 29.3 for men and 26.1 for women. By comparison, the age-adjusted cancer mortality rate per 100,000 for Americans is 206.0 for men and 138.6 for women. Thus, on average, Sri Lankans have about one-fifth to one-seventh chance of getting cancer as their American counterparts.

Colon cancer is virtually unknown in Sri Lanka but is common in the US and Europe. Compared to the breast cancer death rate in Sri Lanka of 1.6 per 100,000, the US rate is 32.7 per 100,000, a 20-fold greater risk. The prostate cancer death rate in Sri Lanka is a miniscule 0.2 per 100,000, whereas in the US it is 23.5, over a 100-fold greater risk. The prostate cancer death rate is even higher among African-Americans. In Washington, DC, with its large African-American population, it is 40.1 per 100,000, a 200-fold greater risk than is seen in Sri Lanka.

Some people may attribute this dramatic difference between North American and Sri Lankan cancer rates to genetic or hereditary causes. But scientists discount this. First of all, Sri Lankans are themselves a diverse population of many ethnic backgrounds. More importantly, when people emigrate from countries that have a low cancer mortality to high-mortality European or North American countries, their cancer rates skyrocket. Within a generation or two, the cancer death rates of these immigrant populations parallel those of their adopted homelands.

The most likely explanations for widely varying cancer death rates around the world are not hereditary but environmental, and in particular dietary. In the case of Sri Lanka, the consumption of turmeric in curries is a key characteristic of the diet. It would not surprise me, therefore, if the high intake of curries helps protect Sri Lankans from the plague of cancer.

Another "Berry Good" Food

Another recent study pointed out that a powerful source of anticancer protection is the berry. Blackberries, strawberries, and blueberries are all highly protective against cancer, heart disease and other ailments. But my favorites are raspberries. A few years ago I planted several long rows of various raspberry plants in the rear of my garden. Raspberries are eager to grow (some people foolishly regard them as a nuisance) and they tolerate even a partially shady location.

Raspberries do need ample water. If you are experiencing a dry spell, you could install soaker hoses at the base of the plants. Whenever rain is lacking, turn on the hoses for a while and give the roots a good soaking. This year I was blessed with an abundance of raspberries. Here is a sample of my harvest:

Pictured Above: Sample of Dr. Moss's raspberries

More Trouble for Iressa

I have written in the past about the difficulty that AstraZeneca's new cancer drug Iressa has faced in getting approval in the US. While Japan approved the drug this summer, the Japanese Health Ministry recently issued a warning that Iressa has been linked to the deaths of 13 patients since July. Patients succumbed to an otherwise rare kind of lung disease called interstitial pneumonia. The company has agreed to tougher warning labels, after the Japanese government called previous labels "insufficient."

Iressa has a reputation for being less toxic than conventional chemotherapy. But according to AstraZeneca, side effects such as interstitial pneumonia, while rare, are well known. The announcement comes at an awkward time for the company. In a recent clinical trial, Iressa was shown not to increase survival when combined with chemotherapy. The company still hopes to market the drug as a stand-alone agent. There is some indication that the drug can cause at least partial remissions in lung cancer where other drugs have failed.

"An FDA advisory committee recently recommended the drug for approval despite its questionable efficacy due to the fact that it has a very benign safety profile," wrote one stock analyst. "This news [about lung toxicity] comes as something of a surprise."

Feeling Outraged

Did you know that parents who choose complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments for their children can be forced to give them toxic chemotherapy instead? In the US, that is the law of the land. Michael and Raphaela Horwin discovered this, to their amazement, when their two-year-old son Alexander developed a deadly brain tumor. After researching various treatment options, they wanted to take him to be treated by Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, a physician in Texas. Dr Burzynski uses non-toxic treatments that are being studied in a number of clinical trials.

But the Horwins' conventional doctors, backed by the full power of the state, forced them to agree to chemotherapy for their child. If the parents had not consented, Alexander could have been taken from them by force. Yet the chemo in question was neither proven nor effective, and the child died.

If you are ready and willing to be thoroughly outraged, read the article, "FDA Forces Fatal Chemo on Kids," at wired.com. Also read Michael Horwin's impassioned plea, "'War on Cancer': Why Does the FDA Deny Access to Alternative Cancer Treatments?" which was published last year in the California Western Law Review. Horwin, originally a health care administrator, became a lawyer in the hope of changing these Draconian laws and making sure that this violation of freedom of choice (and simple decency) does not happen to other caring parents and their children.

I realize that these laws were passed so that "kooky" parents could not abuse their children by withholding necessary medical treatments. But when it comes to cancer there are often no "proven" treatments, and people of good will can differ about the correct approach. In such a situation, shouldn't the judgment of parents prevail?

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:

Curries and Cancer Rates

Cancer mortality rates comparison: US - Sri Lanka - China - Japan.
http://www.truehealth.org/acompar1.html

The mortality figures for Sri Lanka are from World Health Organization statistics for 1996. The US figures are for 1994-1998 and come from the American Cancer Society.

Another "Berry" Good Food

Liu M et al. Antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of raspberries. J Agric Food Chem 2002;50:2926-30.

More Trouble for Iressa

Klamann E and Hirschler B. Japan links 13 deaths to AstraZeneca cancer drug.
http://asia.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1576976

Feeling Outraged

Philipkoski K. FDA forces fatal chemo on kids.
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,55683,00.html

Horwin M. "War on cancer": Why does the FDA deny access to alternative cancer treatments?
http://www.ouralexander.org/war1.htm