Fungi isn't all that bad... seriously

Doug Kaufmann’s article The Role of Fungus in Cancer is an example of the problems that I see with many articles and expert advice that often is exposed to the general public, through mass media that includes the internet, radio, as well as television. My criticism is not to take away from his body of work, nor it a personal attack on his character; however, I have a few qualms about how he has chosen to relay this information about the role of fungus in cancer.

An expert in his field of nutrition, Kaufmann has made some of important points surrounding diet, cancer and fungal infections. In particular, there is indeed evidence that fungus and diet play an important role in cancer. In my own research, looking at dietary supplements and nutritional restriction, I too have found a connection with diet and cancer. My major criticisms of this article, is that Kauffman has largely over-analyzed his findings, making some apparent far-fetched claims, particularly in definitely suggesting that fungus is involved with cancer. I understand this is an opinion, but as an opinion article goes, references beyond 1963 would be nice.

Also because an anti-fungal drug shows an effect against cancer, this doesn’t automatically mean that the fungus caused the cancer, or that, in fact, that a fungal infection might be mistaken for cancer. There are examples of anti-fungal medicine that has anti-cancer properties, separate from their abilities to kill fungus. Rapamycin for example, which was originally found as an anti-fungal drug, has shown to have important anti-cancer properties inhibiting important signaling in numerous cancers including bone tumors and prostate cancer (1,2,3). Many examples that Kaufmann mentioned about patients being put on an anti-fungal medicine which caused the cancer to go away, could very well suggest that the anti-fungal drug had an anti-cancer mechanism as it does that the cancer was actually a fungal infection. Far more data should be gathered before any true claims can be made. Furthermore, an extract from ganoderma lucidum, a fungus that has been used medicinally for years in Asia, has shown to have anti-cancer properties in prostate cancer cells, suggesting that all fungi are not bad.

By simply stating that fungus is probably the cause or even a huge cause of cancer without the proper references could be very misleading. Even though there is evidence to support this finding, there is no evidence that suggests how wide spread this phenomenon may or may not be. Unfortunately, after reading such articles, many people may begin to panic needlessly about something that may not be even a problem, at least not as severe as Kauffman suggests. This panic can cause a lot of problems with healthcare as well, making it difficult for physicians to diagnose properly. What I hope is that physicians and researchers will not take anything for granted, looking down all possible avenues in order to find an eventual treatment and cure for all cancer and other diseases, yet not, with every new finding, think it’s the next best thing since someone thought it a good idea to bring a sharp knife to a big loaf of bread.

1. Chen, J. and Fang, Y. A novel pathway regulating the mammalian target of rapamycin(mTOR) signaling. (2002) Biochem Pharmacology, vol 64, issue 4, pg 1071-1077.

2. Masiello, D., et.al. Combining an mTOR Antagonist and receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of prostate cancer. (2007) Cancer Biology and Therapy, vol 6, issue 2, pg 1538-4047.

3. Ory, B., et.al. mTOR inhibtors(Rapamycin and derviatives) and nitrogen containing bisphosphonates: Bi-functional compunds for the treatment of bone tumours. (2007) Current Medicinal Chemistry. vol 14, number 13, pg 1381-1387

Darwin did not say survival of the fittest.

It is time to retire ‘survival of the fittest’, a phrase that has largely been misunderstood and used to warp the true meaning behind Darwin’s original theory of natural selection and evolution. Survival of the fittest was not even a phrase originally coined by Charles Darwin (1); he only adopted it and used it in later versions of Origin of Species, after he pandered to a constant pressure and criticism that the term natural selection was too confusing (2).

Survival of the fittest was first coined by Darwin’s contemporary Herbert Spencer (3). Herbert Spencer was a philosopher, a sociologist and a scientist. He felt that the theories of evolution and natural selection could and should be applied to society as well. People who were poorer for example, mentally retarded, or seen as inferior by the so-called “elite,” were not as fit, and thus evolutionarily speaking should be weeded out. Herbert Spencer’s racist, elitist views helped the creation Social Darwinism, the view that only people that were special, educated, well-off should evolve to the next stage, and thus no one else should be helped because it would be going against evolution.

Survival of the fittest in the sense of Charles Darwin’s natural selection, however, does not mean the strongest will survive, nor does it mean the smartest, nor the one with the most power. None of this matter as it applies to natural selection. The “fittest” animal in a society (this includes humans) are the ones that express a certain trait in a society that provides a slight advantage of survival in a specific environment, which passed on to their offspring. Very slowly, over time, through the birth and death of countless generations, these small changes will lead to a bigger changes or evolution of the species.

The only real difference between humans and animals is that we understand the concept of evolution, which allows us to manipulate things. For example, through selective inbreeding, we were able to control natural selection and create over hundred breeds of dogs, from the wolf. Historically, many vile men with power have also attempted to cull the human race in their own image through selective destruction such as the horrendous mass genocide of the Jewish population during the holocaust. Unfortunately, until we take hate, ego, and our quest for power, and begin acting in harmony we can’t truly begin to evolve as everyone wishes us to evolve, not strictly in a biological sense but also a spiritual sense as well.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species

(3) http://www2.truman.edu/~rgraber/cultev/spencer.html

(4) http://www.ioa.com/~shermis/socjus/socdar.html

Are Dietary Supplements Bad?

The safety and activity of dietary supplements are an important problem that has yet to be fully studied. Sadly, at the crux of the problem, lies in faulty federal regulations, poor and sometimes incomplete studies, as well as biases on both sides of the argument; those that see supplements as a natural and thus alternative and better option for treatment of health over more "orthodox" western medicine, as well as proponents of western medicine, that see dietary supplements as nothing but worthless artifact of historical "witch doctor" medicine practices.

Personally, I am a proponent of western medicine and of alternative medicine. I feel anyone who shuts their eyes to another form of treatment is sadly providing themselves with a serious disservice particularly in regards to their health. Western medicine is far from perfect, however, there are important federal and state regulations that are imposed to increase patient safety. Unfortunately, these safeguards have failed countless times, yet they are constantly evolving to increase safety. The huge issue with dietary supplements is that there are no proper regulations. There are no regulations necessary for dosing or for safety. In fact, it is very possible that two companies that are selling similar supplements (vitamin C for example) may in fact have two very different ingredients and two very different activities, even if the package says the products are the same. Dietary supplements do not need to be proven safe; they need to be proven unsafe. This unfortunately sets a bad precedent that money is more important than the health of the people. But what really is new? Big drug companies are about the bottom line too, and have often shown to cut corners, putting peoples health in jeopardy to make some cash. However, it often seems that it is easier to pull an FDA regulated drug that might be dangerous to the public than a dietary supplement.

A person's life ultimately is in their own hands and they should be able to take anything they want (within reason), however, they should also be allowed to make an informed decision. This unfortunately is not always easy, especially in the present environment surrounding dietary supplement research. The actual effects of supplements are rarely known, possible side effects as well as benefits are not well elucidated, and effective doses are not properly regulated.

Furthermore, just because a dietary supplement is natural, does not mean it is safe. Everyone is an individual and what works for one person may not work for another. Natural products can have a wide range of activity and could possibly lead to good or bad effects. Now this isn't necessarily any different than that of a pharmaceutical drug, however, it is rare, I feel, to find someone (in general) taking FDA regulated prescription drugs as readily as they might take a supplement.

So, if you are in the mood to try to a new supplement, make sure you do your research (but make sure this is not your local bookstore, rarely are these books a good source for truth. They are often written for entertainment). Research the supplement on the Internet, making sure to focus the search toward proper accepted doses and possible toxicities. It is a good idea to check out possible interactions that supplement might have.

Supplements can possibly interact with other herbal products, food, as well as prescription and over-the-counter medication which may lead to undesired side effects. Also if you are presently taking prescription drugs, consult your doctor and especially your pharmacist. Also do your own research on possible side effect and interactions that the supplement might have. Finally, if you are taking a supplement and it begins to make you feel a little weird, stop taking it immediately and consult your doctor and pharmacist. Remember, natural does not mean healthy. Cyanide is natural and we certainly don't want to take that.

For some good websites on supplements check these sites out:

www.fda.gov (Federal Drug Administration)

ods.od.nih.gov (National Institutes of Health: Office of Dietary Supplements)

www.pubmed.com (scientific abstracts and papers through National Library of Medicine and National Insititute of Health)

Why hasn’t cancer been cured?

Why hasn’t cancer been cured? This a difficult question to answer, and I completely understand the frustration of the public, especially when the media has so often jumped on any scientific research, touting it as the cure to cancer, when often no such claims have been made. This of course, as I mentioned in my previous blog is often due to the scientists’ inability to translate their research properly for the general public, however, this is not always the easiest thing to do. It has been said that the new “words” that someone learns in the sciences are greater than any known language and thus sadly a lot is often lost in translation.

First, I want to mention how much I hate cancer. I mean don’t we all? But in this case, I mean the actual word cancer. While it is a word that I will use over and over again, cancer has largely been overused by scientists, media, and society. Cancer is a buzzword whose original meaning has been all but lost.

So why hasn’t a cure for cancer been discovered? Well this is partly because cancer is not a singular disease, but actually several very different diseases. I would even go so far to say that cancer actually encompasses several million separate diseases, as it has become increasingly evident that cancer is a very individualized disease. For this reason is why we haven’t seen a universal treatment; one type of chemotherapy drugs may not work on two different people, with seemingly exact forms of cancer.

Additionally, cancer is not like other diseases. Cancer is not like a viral or a bacterial infection which invades our body and does havoc (of course there are examples in which these type of foreign little buggies can lead to cancer, but that's another story). Viruses and bacteria are foreign organisms, which our body can overcome, or can be killed with the use of antibiotic and antiviral drugs that usually have relatively limited toxicity on our bodies. Cancer is a disease of your body in response to our own bodies turning against us. It is our body going absolutely nuts and it is exceptionally difficult to fight a part of yourself without seriously damaging the rest of you. Creating a drug that kills cancer will ultimately kill the rest of the tissues as well. Cancers might be exaggerated growth but it is made up of the same components of the rest of the body. So this is an extreme difficulty to overcome.

These issues make finding a cure extremely difficult. However, the research world is making leaps and bounds in treatment and prevention of the disease. They are turning toward more individualized treatment, and god-willing, in a few years, maybe a cure will be on the horizon. Any support for the researcher of the world will be greatly appreciated.

Who is the uncomplicated scientist?

Perhaps it is my goofy outlook on life, my general attire of silly t-shirts and jeans or my nonchalant attitude about my job, but most people are surprised to discover that I am a Doctor of Pharmacology (the study of drugs and compounds on the body) with a focus on cancer research. I apparently do not fit into a somewhat common perception of scientists by the general public; a stuffy aloof arrogant geek that looks down at everyone else over their wire-rimmed glasses.

It is because of this perception of the science community by the general public that I decided to create this blog. I have become frustrated with how science is perceived by the general public.

Due to many reasons including ego, laziness, little understanding on how to properly convey their work to people not in their field and at times, due to spending over half their life in a lab, research scientists sometimes show an incredible inability to socialize properly, thus largely separating themselves from the general public. Unfortunately, this chasm has only increased the mistrust that people have toward scientists.

However, the lack of proper communication between the public and the science community does not fall completely on the shortcomings of the scientists. Mass media, the main outlet for any new information, sadly, provides very poor and inaccurate reports on scientific and healthcare research. Reports on new discoveries are often over-hyped by the media, making claims that are not true. I can't count how many times I've heard that the cure for cancer has been found by the local news media. In a constant strive for ratings and entertainment, the truth is largely warped in our pop-culture driven, low attention span society. Also in a media that almost always focuses on failures rather than successes, many have become disillusioned with the science and healthcare community.

I hope to use this blog as a forum, an uncomplicated approach toward science, commenting on new approaches toward diet, cancer, and health. I hope you enjoy