There is no cancer that has not been survived by someone, regardless of how far advanced it was. If even one person has succeeded in healing his cancer, there must be a mechanism for it, just as there is a mechanism for creating cancer.
–Andreas Moritz
Hormones … the backbone of health and quality of life.
As explained by Dr. Burzynski, we have cancer-protective genes in our bodies, like light switches. As we decline in hormonal production, these switches are turned off: by eating badly, by not managing stress, by consuming and living with chemicals, and by the aging process itself. In order to reinstate these cancer-protective genes, we need to reinstate the hormones to perfect balance. Then the brain perceives that all is well. If we are also following a healthy lifestyle, then the cancer in all of us is kept at bay.
The next interview with Dr. Wright will explain in depth the enormous cancer-protective components of hormone replacement. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer, I personally chose, after much research, to forgo the traditional cancer treatment of chemotherapy. I did have a lumpectomy and radiation, but I would not make the same decision regarding radiation today. That is my personal feeling, not advice. Also, I restored myself to perfect hormonal balance and decided to take nutrition seriously, as in my life depends on it. I have been cancer free for nine years to date.
I have never recommended that anyone do as I did. I am merely suggesting that you look into and understand true hormone replacement for quality of life and as a cancer protection device. I am not speaking of synthetic, dangerous so-called hormones such as Premarin, Provera, or Prempro. The Women’s Health Initiative in 2002 stopped an eight-year study at a little over five years, declaring that “it would be better for women to take nothing at all than to take these dangerous, harmful, and sometimes fatal hormones.” The report was speaking of synthetic hormones. The headlines declared, “Hormone replacement is dangerous and even fatal.” Well, what woman in her right mind would continue taking anything with that declaration? So as a result, women stopped taking their synthetic hormones. And guess what? Breast cancer rates plummeted.
Unfortunately women then started viewing hormones as the enemy due to a lack of understanding by mainstream medicine of the protective nature of real hormone replacement (bioidentical hormones). Unfortunately as a result of loss of hormones, many women began to experience a diminished quality of life: no sex drive, inability to sleep, weight gain, bloating, body itches, mood swings, hot flashes, and memory loss. Women were expected to tough it out or take a myriad of pharmaceutical drugs for depression, sleep, and anxiety. Men are offered Viagra for loss of libido, but nothing of a similar nature exists for women. Guess it’s not considered important.
Fortunately, women do have an opportunity to regain their sexuality, and that answer comes from the replacement of bioidentical hormones. BHRT, as you will read, is not only cancer protective, but also restores quality of life.
But today, without the protection of real hormone replacement, breast cancer rates are rising once again to frightening levels, one out of every eight women. Scientific studies suggest that bioidentical progesterone and estriol offer protection against breast cancer, but no one has connected the dots. Synthetics were chemicals and the chemicals were responsible for raising breast cancer rates. Dr. Wright and Dr. Julie Taguchi both feel that correct bioidentical hormone replacement is protective against cancer. Studies also suggest that this type of hormone replacement is related to favorable gene expression—explained by Dr. Burzynski as turning off genetic switches that enable cells to propagate out of control.
Men suffer from hormonal loss, too. They have the same cancer-protective switches that get turned off by the same lifestyle habits and toxicity. With bioidentical hormone replacement, men can maintain their edge. They can protect their hearts and, best of all, protect and prevent cancer, especially prostate cancer.
It is the theory of Jonathan Wright, an esteemed, Western-trained doctor (as well as Dr. Taguchi), that hormones replaced in perfect ratios will prevent breast cancer and all other cancers, provided the patient is compliant with good diet, stress management, and detoxification.
SS: Hello, Jonathan. It is so nice to interview you again—you always have so much to say, and your profound understanding of the hormonal system and hormone replacement is what I want to discuss with you today. In keeping with the ideas of this book, I would like you to tell us why it is that hormones protect us from cancer and why, as we age and decline in hormones, we need to replace the missing hormones in order to protect us from getting cancer.
JW: Thanks again, Suzanne, for this opportunity.
Let’s start with the hormone DHEA. This hormone has the broadest application against cancers of all sorts because DHEA is a key hormone in regulating an important enzyme involved in the pathway that feeds energy to cancers.
In the nineteenth century, it was discovered that cancers operate by anaerobic metabolism, meaning operating without oxygen. The majority of metabolism in the human body is aerobic, with oxygen. You’ve heard of aerobic exercise, with increased oxygen use?
SS: Yes, absolutely.
JW: Uniquely, cancers operate with only anaerobic metabolism, meaning they cannot operate with oxygen. It actually kills the cells. There is one major pathway of anaerobic metabolism that feeds energy to cancers, and cancers must rely on that pathway to survive. If that pathway is slowed down or choked off or down-regulated, then a newly developing cancer can’t draw as much energy. More cancers die in the early stages on their own because they don’t get energy.
DHEA down-regulates that major pathway by its effect on the enzyme G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase], which helps feed anaerobic energy to cancers. Populations who genetically have weak G6PD have been found to have a lot less cancer.
SS: You mean because this enzyme is weak in these people their pathway is automatically down-regulated because their bodies can’t produce as much energy anaerobically, so cancers have a harder time even getting started, as well as a harder time growing if they do get started?
JW: Right. So if we keep our DHEA at Jack Benny levels—he said he was perpetually thirty-nine, or maybe even age thirty or so—the pathway that can feed anaerobic energy to the cancer will not be as active, and more cancers will die earlier.
SS: How do you know this? What studies or experiments have been done to prove this?
JW: Almost all research proving this point has been done in animals, because it involves deliberately giving them carcinogens. One such study divided animals into two groups. One group had DHEA in their animal chow, and the other half did not.
All the animals were then given the same amount of carcinogen in the same exact dose. In the group that got DHEA, 15 percent or so got cancer. That’s a significant percentage, but in the group that did not get DHEA, over 50 percent developed cancer.
SS: That is quite significant.
JW: It’s very probable that this down-regulation by DHEA of anaerobic energy fed to the cancer in the experimental animals is why they developed less cancer.
Similar animal studies have had similar results. We can conclude from all of them that DHEA can reduce our risk of cancers by putting a brake on feeding them anaerobic energy. Of course, we cannot say it totally eliminates the risk of cancer, but it does significantly reduce the risk.
Giving people carcinogens in experiments of course isn’t done, so there are no human studies done the same way. But as I mentioned before, there are substantial populations of people, usually living in malaria-ridden areas, who have genetically weak G6PD enzymes—this actually is a partial protection against dying of malaria—and it’s well established that they get significantly fewer cancers of all sorts.
SS: So DHEA is protective and preventative against cancer.
JW: Very protective, but for best results it must be used in a cream form so it can be transported through skin or mucous membranes and is delivered directly into the bloodstream, and from there to each and every cell in the body without being changed first by our livers. When we swallow DHEA (or any other natural steroid hormone such as estrogen or testosterone) it goes to the liver first, not the rest of our body cells, and the liver’s basic job with steroid hormones is to alter them by conjugation with other molecules, like hanging a baggage routing tag on them, mostly so they can then be routed for disposal and excretion.
When we use DHEA in the cream form, only a little bit of DHEA is altered by the liver with every complete circulation of the blood, so more DHEA molecules survive for our other cells—skin, muscle, bone, brain, all of them—to use them before they’re “thrown away.”
SS: So if we swallow DHEA or another hormone, does a lot of it go to waste?
JW: Literally. And not only that, but sometimes they also cause trouble. That’s very well established with estrogens. If we swallow estrogens—even bioidentical ones—they raise our risk of blood clots, affect our cholesterol levels adversely, and even increase risk of certain cancers. If we rub them on, that doesn’t happen. There’s considerable research on that point.
It always makes sense to copy nature as closely as possible in medicine—it’s always safer, and usually more effective, too—and this is just another good example.
SS: So let’s move on to estrogens. How do estrogens protect against cancer? Because we women are always being warned that excessive estrogen is a setup for cancer.
JW: Actually, estrogen can protect against breast cancer in many ways. In the 1960s, Professor Henry Lemon discovered a very interesting thing: Women were more likely to be long-term breast cancer survivors after the surgical removal of their tumors if they had more estriol in their urine specimens than estrone and estradiol. Conversely, if they had less estriol than estrone and estradiol, they were much less likely to be long-term cancer survivors.
SS: Well, that would be my scenario. My body does not make the very specific type of estrogen called estriol very efficiently at all, as you discovered, and I developed breast cancer.
JW: Yes, but now you’ve protected yourself by replacing the missing estriol in your body on a daily basis. So you’ve consciously provided your own protection, while most women’s bodies do it automatically.
There was a very large study of estriol’s relationship to breast cancer funded by the Department of Defense. Approximately fifteen thousand women enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health system in Oakland volunteered during their first pregnancies in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They had specimens taken and measured for various things, including particularly estriol. Nothing further was done until the late 1990s, approximately thirty-five years later.
Pregnant women were picked because more estriol is made during pregnancy than at any other times of life. It’s also been observed that women who make the most estriol during their pregnancies produce the most estriol throughout their regular menstrual cycles.
When the statistics were compiled approximately thirty-five years later, it was found that the women who had the highest amounts of estriol during their first pregnancies had more than 50 percent fewer breast cancers during that time, and the women with the lowest amounts of estriol had the most breast cancers during those approximately thirty-five years.
SS: So estriol is key and we can measure it through urine testing. It is vitally important that estriol is replaced in the proper amounts for cancer protection.
JW: Yes. Estriol by itself is a weak estrogen, but in the presence of another estrogen such as estradiol it becomes an anticarcinogen. This is definitely a good thing.
SS: My understanding is that textbooks refer to three “classical estrogens”: estradiol, estrone, and estriol. And you are saying that for lower cancer risk, there needs to be the correct ratio of estriol to estradiol and estrone. You need to have more estriol than the other two and then it becomes cancer protective.
JW: Exactly! While estradiol is the most potent estrogen, and it’s more responsible at puberty for most of the development of breasts and hips and other nice things that help make ladies, it is also procarcinogenic. But in the presence of estriol, much of estradiol’s procarcinogenic effect is blocked. Estriol does that with other estrogens also.
SS: But if estriol is a weak estrogen how does it have the strength to be an anticarcinogen?
JW: By occupying the estrogen receptor sites, just sitting there, so not as much estradiol can get through. Some estradiol still gets through anyway, of course, just not as much. So if there is a lot of estriol—more estriol than estradiol and estrone, which is also a procarcinogen—it can do its job and protect against cancer.
SS: If estriol is so important, then why did Wyeth file a “citizen’s petition” with the FDA to stop the sale of estriol by compounding pharmacies, and why was the FDA, in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies, instrumental in trying to make this happen?
JW: Because horse estrogens or estrogens sold by patent medicine companies, including Wyeth, do not contain estriol.
SS: So they want to take away a big advantage of presently prescribed bioidentical estrogens—cancer-risk reduction with estriol—because women will buy the pharmaceutical products.
JW: You got it. When you have more estriol occupying the receptor sites than the procarcinogenic estrogens, then they haven’t much of a chance of causing cancer.
SS: This is fantastic information, important information. Women need to know this.
JW: Since you mentioned your situation, may I discuss it a bit more?
JW: You found out, unfortunately, that even though you were taking a good-size quantity of estradiol, when you did the twenty-four-hour urine test—considered the gold standard for steroid hormone testing—your body wasn’t transforming much estradiol into estriol. Your estrone (also metabolized from estradiol) was significantly higher than your estriol. This is not good. Most women’s bodies metabolize most of their estrone into estriol but your body was not doing that.
SS: So I was set up for another cancer.
JW: Your risk was definitely higher. So we added extra estriol to your estrogen regimen and compensated for your body’s faulty metabolism—in your case probably a genetic problem—and made your overall estrogen replacement protective.
SS: And now I have another layer of protection against breast cancer.
JW: Yes, this was so important for you! I’m glad we got that checked.
SS: I thank you for finding that—it most probably saved my life.
JW: At the very least it increased your odds of not getting another cancer. And thank you for sharing your story so other women can check themselves, too. I hope to do all I can for you and for everybody else I am working with.
Another thing women should know is that iodine stimulates the metabolism of estradiol and estrone into estriol. I’ve worked with many, many women who had test results like yours to start with. The large majority have been premenopausal women with fibrocystic breast disease. The outright cure for both fibrocystic breast disease as well as raising estriol levels internally without taking estriol from the outside in nearly all cases is just using sufficient iodine or iodide.
SS: That would have been me. I had fibrocystic disease in my premenopausal years. I also experienced childhood abuse, which I think is a significant factor in breast cancer. So, putting these factors together, I was kind of marked, and I guess a lot of women are, but this is why what you are saying is so important. Women reading this are going to connect the dots for themselves, and maybe save their lives as a result.
I use Lugol’s iodine orally, but if I get breast pain I put it right on the breast for a while until it calms down. I guess it flares up from stress when the estradiol/estriol quotient gets messed up.
Why is iodine such a big protector against breast cancer?
JW: According to researchers, it directly stimulates the formation of iodolipids—fats combined with iodine—in the breast. Iodolipids kill many types of breast cancer cells: bang, dead! Iodine also promotes the formation of more estriol, which is protective against cancer formation in the first place.
SS: I imagine you are going to say that iodine supplementation should be done under the auspices of your doctor, right?
JW: Absolutely, because if we take too much it can inhibit our thyroid glands and we don’t want to do that. Iodine is key but there are some technical points about iodine and iodide use, so it’s best to work with a physician skilled and knowledgeable about natural and nutritional medicine and bioidentical hormones for this problem.
SS: On my urine test report there are some more estrogens called 2-hydroxyestrogens and 16-hydroxyestrogens. You are always very concerned with these numbers. Please explain why.
JW: If a premenopausal woman’s body is producing more 2-hydroxy-estrogens than 16-hydroxyestrogens, her breast cancer risk is less. This is good. But, if it’s the other way around, her breast cancer risk is higher.
SS: How do we keep these two—2 and 16—in the right order?
JW: By eating broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, bok choy, and other brassica vegetables. They contain compounds that shunt the metabolism of estrone toward the 2-hydroxy, which is more anticarcinogenic, and away from the 16-hydroxy, which is procarcinogenic.
SS: How many servings a week of these vegetables?
JW: Three or more servings a week will reduce breast cancer risk and, incidentally, will also reduce prostate cancer risk for men. A research team reported that if a man’s body is producing too much 16-hydroxy, he actually has a greater risk of prostate cancer also.
SS: Can you get the benefits of these vegetables in a supplement form, such as indole-3-carbinol?
JW: Yes. Indole-3-carbinol [13C] and DIM, a supplement, are actually very concentrated forms of the natural active ingredients in brassica vegetables. Some people prefer supplements, and some physicians recommend that any woman using bioidentical hormones should automatically take DIM or indole-3-carbinol.
SS: I take these supplements even though I consume huge amounts of vegetables daily. But is it possible to take too much DIM and 13C?
JW: Yes, because too much of either will raise the 2/16 ratio too high—too much 2-hydroxy, not enough 16-hydroxy. A high ratio will increase risk of osteoporosis.
SS: Can you eat too much broccoli, too?
JW: That would be almost impossible! This warning applies to supplementation. Don’t take 13C or DIM without checking your 2/16 ratio; if it’s too high, research shows it raises your risk for osteoporosis.
SS: How can we tell if it’s too much?
JW: You can tell by taking a specific 2/16 urine test, or the twenty-four-hour urine test, which gives much more information. Either test can spot if a woman is taking too much DIM or 13C. But if a woman is getting too little iodine or iodide for her body to metabolize estrogen properly, it will show exactly the same pattern of estrogen metabolites, so it’s best to work with a skilled physician.
SS: So if the 2/16 ratio is too low, it’s higher cancer risk, and if it’s too high, it’s osteoporosis risk.
JW: Right.
SS: Women have three “classical” estrogens plus many others and men have estrogens also.
JW: That’s right. One of these many other estrogens is called 4-hydroxyestrogen. It is a very potent precursor of further metabolites that are very procarcinogenic. Dr. Henry Lemon did his estriol research at the University of Nebraska decades ago, and now at that same university Dr. Ercole Cavalieri has published many papers on the carcinogenicity of 4-hydroxyestrogen.
While the 2/16 hydroxyestrogens are evaluated as a ratio, 4-hydroxyestrogen is evaluated by itself. The higher it goes, the greater the cancer risk.
SS: So what does one do about this?
JW: At present, 4-hydroxyestrogen can only be evaluated on the twenty-four-hour urine test. If it is higher than desirable, work with a physician who understands how to alter estrogen metabolism safely with botanicals and other techniques to shunt your metabolism away from 4-hydroxyestrogen.
Another very important estrogen metabolite—again, only checkable at present with the twenty-four-hour urine test—is an exceptionally potent anticarcinogenic estrogen called 2-methoxyestrogen, which is totally natural and made in every woman’s body. The pharmaceutical companies also realized this is anticancer so they decided to try for approval by the FDA.
They changed the name of their product from 2-methoxyestradiol to Panzem. In their research, they had women (and men, too) swallow it, which is totally wrong, as it’s well known that swallowed estrogens cause more tendency to blood clotting and inflammation.
The patent medicine company which renamed 2-methoxyestradiol as Panzem was giving it in dosages as high as 1,000 milligrams daily, which is more than a thousand times as much as is usually found in anyone’s body. And this can raise our risk of blood clotting, inflammation, and other problems caused by overwhelming the liver with estrogens of any sort.
But Panzem (2-methoxyestradiol in disguise) is showing positive effects, and it should, because 2-methoxyestradiol is cancer protective. Even some pancreatic cancers are showing improvement, and pancreatic cancer is one of the toughest to treat. Some breast cancers are improving, as are prostate cancers, cervical cancers, endometrial cancers, lung cancers, osteosarcomas, and other cancers.
Unfortunately, by not copying nature—giving enormous quantities of this bioidentical hormone [renamed] and having people swallow it—side effects are showing up, and some individuals stop taking it even though it’s helping against their cancers. One of the side effects is nausea and vomiting.
SS: But if it is helping in certain cancers, is it worth the risk?
JW: Sure, but why not give it by nature’s route—which is not the gastrointestinal tract—in smaller quantities and see what happens? In fact, Mayo Clinic researchers sort of gave it that way—they used injections instead of having patients swallow it. And surprise! They reported it was effective at lower quantities.
Think about this. Our bodies make 2-methoxyestradiol. Why not make more of our own, internally, and prevent problems as much as possible? It takes much less of anything to prevent a problem, but much more of anything to treat a problem once it has occurred. 2-methoxyestradiol is a methylated estrogen. The enzyme that does the methylation is called COMT, catechol-O-methyltransferase. It transfers the methyl groups to the estrogen and it comes out as 2-methoxyestradiol.
SS: Okay, but I don’t know why we care about this.
JW: Because that same enzyme, COMT, helps activate adrenaline when we are under stress by adding more methyl groups. If COMT is kept busy methylating adrenaline, it can’t methylate as much estrogen, so our own internal production of 2-methoxyestradiol goes down. Since our own internal 2-methoxyestradiol helps prevent cancer, this is one of the reasons why prolonged stress opens us up to more cancers, especially for premenopausal women. We believe, although it’s not yet proven, that stress also affects women on hormone replacement in the same way, that if they are under prolonged stress and their 2-methoxy levels go down (because all those methyl groups are going over to adrenaline), women enduring prolonged stress will have less cancer-fighting potential being made internally.
SS: So let me go over this again: 2-methoxyestradiol is a very potent anticancer hormone that our bodies make, so potent, in fact, that the drug companies want in on it even though it is a nonpatentable substance because it comes from nature. A drug company took 2-methoxyestradiol and changed the name to Panzem so it sounds like a drug, even though it’s 100 percent natural. Since they can’t patent it, they’re counting on the FDA to prevent or eliminate any competition from compounding pharmacies.
It’s being administered in huge dosages, a thousand times more than the body ever made, to fight cancers, and it is being given orally, which is dangerous because when taken orally even bioidentical estrogens can create damage in the liver, create blood clots, and drive up inflammation in the body. So it won’t do as much good or be as safe as if it were given in a way closer to the way nature uses to circulate it into our bodies, which isn’t through our GI tracts and then past our livers first.
You are saying if the FDA would get out of the way of natural medicine, women and men could take 2-methoxyestradiol from a compounded pharmacy in its natural form in a cream base. It could be rubbed on to be received transdermally and it could provide huge anticancer functions.
Why is the FDA in our way? Why are they involved?
JW: If the FDA is successful at preventing compounding pharmacists from compounding nature’s own bioidentical hormones, then the patent medicine companies will be the only ones who are approved to sell this stuff. If no one else is allowed to sell these hormones, then patent medicine companies still have an “exclusive”—as if they had a patent on nature—and they would be able to make enormous profits, which is the whole point with patent medicine companies.
SS: And the fact that people will have blood clots and inflammation, which is dangerous to their health and lives, by taking such big dosages, and that they are throwing up, is not an issue with them.
JW: Right. These huge doses are not good for people, and it is not good for those of us who want to go natural or alternative.
SS: I am constantly astounded that big business and government in our great country has such a hold over our abilities to treat our bodies the way we choose. I don’t want their drugs unless absolutely necessary. I want to live a natural life. Where does someone like me get the treatment I desire?
JW: You have to go around and find out the information for yourself, as you do, Suzanne. You have to do your own research and read between the lines when attacks come out, like this latest Newsweek article attacking you and Oprah for featuring bioidentical hormones.
SS: Yes, you are right, and it is true. So let’s go back to hormones and their cancer-protective advantages.
JW: Okay. The subject was stress reduction so our bodies can make more cancer-fighting 2-methoxyestradiol. We can also take safe, natural supplements from natural food stores to help our bodies manufacture 2-methoxyestradiol. This includes supplements with the word methyl or meth in them, such as methylcobalamin, which is a particular form of vitamin B12; methylfolate, a more active form of folic acid; and S-adeno-sylmethionine, also called SAM-e. Those three supplements will help our bodies increase our own anticancer 2-methoxyestradiol.
Another research paper showed that even in very tiny amounts, 2-methoxyestradiol inhibits the growth of uterine fibroid cells. So not only is it cancer inhibiting, it also inhibits benign abnormal growth.
SS: This is fantastic information. B12 injections and SAM-e increase cancer protection. Women are having such problems with fibroid growth … and as a result the remedy is to do total hysterectomies. And you and I both know that women are never the same after a total hysterectomy unless they are fortunate enough to find a doctor who knows how to restore them hormonally—which rarely happens.
JW: Most doctors don’t understand how to work with human chemistry using bioidentical substances and substances found in nature. In a couple of generations we are going to look back and say, “Oh my, why weren’t we teaching this in medical schools?”
Most doctors don’t study how to manipulate normal body chemistry safely and effectively with molecules natural to the body, so they would not have a clue about 2-methoxyestradiol and its anticancer effect, but there are many research papers about it.
SS: Well, while we are at it, why isn’t this being taught in medical schools?
JW: Because medical schools teach about body chemistry, but when it’s time to teach how to work with body chemistry to treat illness, medical schools switch away from using chemicals naturally made in our bodies or introduced from nature—which our bodies are adapted to, with some exceptions, of course—and start teaching what to do about illness with patent medicines.
By law, patent medicines can’t be naturally occurring. The vast majority of them have never, ever been in human bodies. So how can we expect them to work as well as molecules that belong there? Besides, as our bodies aren’t designed to use the molecules of patent medicines, they always have adverse effects. Natural molecules can and do have adverse effects, too, but they’re many, many fewer than patent medicine molecules.
SS: What else should we know about hormones and cancer protection?
JW: There is a testosterone-metabolizing enzyme called 5-alpha reductase and the patent medicine companies are all over that one. They’ve made patent medications including Proscar and Propecia that inhibit 5-alpha reductase, and research has found that inhibiting 5-alpha reductase could lower a man’s risk of prostate cancer. But there’s a potential problem with doing that.
Here’s the natural pathway of metabolism: testosterone can turn into dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The enzyme that helps do that is 5-alpha reductase. DHT is an even more potent version of testosterone than testosterone itself and is thought to be procarcinogenic.
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine pointed out that after testosterone turns into DHT, DHT is then metabolized into an-drostenediol, which is actually anticarcinogenic. So what’s important is the balance between the procarcinogenic DHT and the anticarcinogenic androstenediol, not just the amount of either one alone. It’s a very similar situation to the ratio between procarcinogenic estrone and estradiol and the anticarcinogenic estriol that we covered earlier.
SS: So if a man has more androstenediol than he has DHT, that man is less likely to get cancer from the procarcinogenic DHT because of a properly balanced ratio?
JW: Correct. We can do twenty-four-hour urine tests that check the DHT and the androstenediol and we can also check blood tests. But if a man is taking either Proscar or Propecia or another 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor, the lab report will show it. DHT will be significantly reduced. If that were the only effect of these patent medicines, we could say there’s no question that they reduce cancer risk, so—as some urologists have written—every man should use them. Unfortunately, sometimes these drugs lower androstenediol even more than they lower DHT, which gives an improperly balanced ratio—too little anticarcinogenic androstenediol, even though procarcinogenic DHT has been lowered, and that increases cancer risk.
This was pointed out by the New England Journal of Medicine article, that too much inhibition of 5-alpha reductase with Proscar and Propecia might inhibit androstenediol, resulting in the wrong balance.
There was actually a study called the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial that illustrated this hazard. Men were asked to take one of the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors or a placebo in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study over a number of years. In the placebo group, 24.4 percent of the men ended up getting prostate cancer. In the group that took the patent medicine 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors, 18 percent ended up with cancer. That is significantly less. But if you read this prostate trial completely, it turns out that amongst the 24.4 percent of the men in the placebo group who got prostate cancer, only 22 percent of the cancers were highly aggressive. But in the men who were taking the patent medicine 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors, 37 percent of their cancers were highly aggressive. Highly aggressive means more likely to be deadly.
SS: So that’s why we never heard of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.
JW: Right! Can you imagine the ad saying, “Take my patent medicine because you’ll get less cancer, but if you do get cancer, you are more likely to die”? I don’t think they want to say that.
But of course there’s debate. Just last year, some researchers in the United States said that their reevaluation of the research didn’t come to the same conclusions, and wrote that all men should take a patent medicine 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor to reduce their risk of prostate cancer. But a very prestigious review from the United Kingdom—the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews—concluded that there just isn’t enough information about the effects of these patent medications on prostate cancer deaths.
SS: What about men taking the supplement saw palmetto? Isn’t that a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor?
JW: Yes, it is. Saw palmetto can be used as a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor for men whose 5-alpha-reductase enzyme is overactive. And it works, but even though it’s natural and less hazardous than patent medicines, it’s still important to check both DHT and androstenediol if you’re taking saw palmetto for years and years.
But before a man reaches for the saw palmetto, he should know that both supplemental zinc and some fatty acids—especially gamma-linolenic acid (GLA)—can inhibit 5-alpha reductase, too, and should be tried first, because they are both essential to life, and saw palmetto isn’t.
SS: Why is that important?
JW: If our bodies need an essential nutrient for one purpose, it’s very likely our bodies need it for many other purposes, too, including many we don’t even know about. If a man needs zinc to modulate his testosterone metabolism, he may need it for his vision, his hearing, or something else. But if he uses saw palmetto instead, it won’t help these other areas.
But one thing we all need to understand: even though bioidentical hormones are much safer than patent medicine versions of hormones, there’s no such thing as perfect safety. The best we can do is minimize our risk. That’s why very careful follow-up testing is so important.
SS: So you are saying there is no surefire protection that will absolutely, positively prevent cancer? Are you saying that cancer is deadly and sometimes it kills in spite of everything one does to minimize risk?
JW: It’s important to state that fact. Even premenopausal women or men can develop hormone-related cancer from time to time, and these are people who are still manufacturing their own hormones and they are bioidentical because they are internally produced. So no, we cannot eliminate the risk totally, particularly in today’s world with all the toxic chemicals out there. But at least we can minimize the risk by getting a comprehensive test that shows not only your levels of hormones—as in “Is it too much, or is it too little, or is it just right?”—but also checks all these points of metabolism of hormones, whether they’re made internally or taken as bioidentical hormones from the outside. If hormones are not metabolizing properly, there is something that can be done nearly every time: a vitamin, a mineral, an herb, or something natural that will stimulate normal metabolism or inhibit abnormal metabolism.
SS: What about men whose bodies turn their testosterone into too much estrogen? I don’t think men understand this, but whenever I see a man with breasts and a big belly, I usually presume that it might be that too much of his testosterone has turned into estrogen. This is a dangerous scenario for men, isn’t it?
JW: Yes it is … too much or the wrong kind of estrogen can be a cancer setup for a man’s prostate gland.
SS: Besides the visible effect of too much estrogen in a man—including breasts, big belly, high voice, sagging shoulders, lack of energy, lack of vitality, inability to achieve potent erections—all can indicate that the ratio of estrogen to testosterone is off and causing symptoms.
You see, this is where women are different: if we were experiencing equivalent symptoms, we would be at the doctor’s office immediately. Men will just accept these symptoms as normal and give in.
JW: If too much estrogen for a man is the problem, he can easily pick this up with a twenty-four-hour urine test because the urine test can show estriol and other estrogens that a blood test can’t.
If a man finds higher estrogen levels than normal and relatively low testosterone levels, he shouldn’t push testosterone replacement until he works to correct the reasons why too much of his testosterone is turning into estrogen. This is one of several ways to reduce cancer risk, too.
If a man sticks to the program—which involves diet change and several supplements—he can lower his estrogens and more safely use testosterone supplementation. He can get to feeling so much better, he gets his energy back, and if he works on his health seriously, he can achieve his optimal self.
SS: Has anyone ever gotten cancer from using bioidenticals?
JW: I can’t say there is research on this; in fact, there’s virtually none. But I can tell you that I started prescribing bioidentical hormones in the early 1980s. Until now, 2009, I have talked to exactly one woman who came back and said, “I started taking bioidenticals and I ended up with cancer,” but I think she had some other problems behind it. Her cancer was diagnosed almost exactly three months after she started taking the bioidenticals. But because of the size of her cancer there is no way it could have grown that fast in that amount of time.
SS: What is the relationship of progesterone to cancer?
JW: Progesterone is generally considered to be anticarcinogenic. It does reduce a woman’s risk of cancer if one is taking bioidentical estrogen. Testosterone (in woman-size quantities) reduces a woman’s risk, too, as does melatonin. But progesterone is the major protector in this group.
SS: What do you mean, “major protector”?
JW: If a woman is using bioidentical hormones, she should be using a pattern that includes estrogen, progesterone, DHEA, melatonin, and likely testosterone and a little bit of thyroid.
Men using bioidentical testosterone should likely be using DHEA, melatonin, and a little bit of thyroid, too.
SS: Should women be using estrogen in a cycling pattern? Mimicking nature, just like when we were making a cycle naturally?
JW: It’s always safest to mimic nature. It’s a bit of work getting older—we’ve all heard that before—but if you pay attention and do this work, it can give you a longer, healthier, more active life.
SS: Let me tell you, it’s not work—it takes me about fifteen minutes a day to do my routine and about $85 a month for hormones, and for this I get to live a more youthful, happier, higher quality of life.
I get attacked for doing this by journalists incorrectly saying I am doing this to look youthful. I can never refute this because it draws more attention to it, but my objective is not about looking younger, although I find that to be a nice side effect. My objective for doing this is to keep my insides young and working at optimal levels as a means of disease prevention. I do not want to be sick again ever.
JW: Absolutely! Fool all those people out there who are saying you are a quack.
One more bit of information: Dr. Guy Abraham, who has led the revolution in iodine use, reminded us that a Journal of the American Medical Association article in the 1970s reported that women who take thyroid and do not take iodine had precisely twice the risk of cancer as those women who take thyroid and iodine. And on its own, iodine (not iodide) protects a woman against breast cancer. Two groups of researchers have reported that iodine actually helps kill some breast cancer cell lines.
SS: Well, then that’s another area where I am protected. I take thyroid and iodine and iodide thanks to you.
JW: And it should be all three: thyroid, iodine, and iodide. Women who want to take advantage of iodine’s protective effects against breast cancer should check with a physician skilled and knowledgeable in natural and nutritional medicine and, if possible, knowledgeable in bioidenti-cal hormones, too.
SS: Iodide also helps with acid reflux—a manifestation they don’t tell you about when undergoing radiation.
One last question. The last time we were together you mentioned that Dr. Bill Cham, who wrote a book called The Eggplant Cancer Cure, actually has come up with a nontoxic cream that kills skin cancer. Tell me about that.
JW: Yes, Dr. Cham has found substances that can penetrate and kill skin cancer cells, but can’t penetrate normal skin cells. So normal skin cells are untouched and unhurt while the skin cancer cells die.
SS: We’re talking basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, right?
JW: Correct. You can read all about it in his book, and you can order his cream from our dispensary at the Tahoma Clinic.
SS: I used his cream Curaderm on a skin cancer on my leg that according to my doctor “needed to be cut out,” and after a month of application, the skin cancer disappeared. I’ll be sure to put this information in the back of the book.
What keeps you going?
JW: My major goal is for our children—and for sure everybody’s grandchildren—to have the freedom to choose any type of health care they would like. Whether it is patent medicine or natural medicine, it doesn’t matter, if there is a choice—freedom—to choose without persecution or prosecution by any government interference, without FDA raids or harassment, without even much criticism.
Academic debate is fine, it’ll go on forever, but the kind of criticism I am specifically talking about comes from people who are given the power to harass and even arrest those who are taking care of their health in ways they don’t happen to like.
We are told we are fighting for freedom overseas, but what we need to do—in my opinion, of course—is to bring the army, navy, and marines home to help restore health care freedom along with the many other freedoms we are supposed to have if we follow the Constitution of these United States of America as was intended by the Founding Fathers of our republic.
SS: Well, it does amaze me that we do not have that freedom in this country. Kind of boggles the mind.
JW: Because this is not at all what was intended by the Founding Fathers, nor what they wrote in the Constitution. It is also amazing that our Congress has allowed the growth of giant bureaucracies, giant government agencies, most of them federal, which are allowed to promulgate regulations without any congressional oversight. Those agencies then turn into judge, jury, and, in fact, executioner—no separation of powers. While they don’t actually cut off anybody’s head, they do impose enormous fines, they destroy businesses, and they can do all that by administrative process.
SS: A number of doctors in my book, yourself included, have been persecuted.
JW: Imagine how many more innovative physicians we would have doing safe, natural therapies if they weren’t simply so intimidated by what they have seen happen to so many of these doctors. Dr. Burzynski is the best—or the worst—example of intimidation, however you’d like to look at that.
SS: And with Dr. Forsythe, for him with the FDA guns drawn, it was like the Wild West. Hopefully this book will continue to educate my readers about the realities of true health, what is available, and the spin that big business puts on this type of approach to health. I always say, if we all felt as good as those of us on full bioidentical hormone replacement, no one would need all their drugs, and that is what this is all about. We are not the customer they want. Big business would prefer we are in a constant state of degradation and needing many of their drugs to get us through the day.
Thank you for your insights, Jonathan. Bioidentical hormones are cancer protective, and now you have educated my readers so that they can take advantage of your knowledge for a healthier and longer life with quality and cancer protection. I appreciate you.
JW: Thank you for all you are doing, Suzanne.
Knock It Out
DHEA is a key hormone in regulating an important enzyme involved in the pathway that feeds energy to cancers. By keeping DHEA at the right level, we can make the pathway less active, so more cancer cells die sooner. DHEA must be used in a cream form, so it can be transported through skin or mucous membranes straight into the bloodstream.
Estriol by itself is a weak estrogen, but in the presence of another estrogen such as estradiol it becomes an anticarcinogen, making it important for cancer protection. If you are not making enough estriol, then you should replace it in the proper amounts to reduce your cancer risk.
Iodine stimulates the metabolism of estradiol and estrone into estriol, increasing your cancer protection. In many premenopausal women with fibrocystic breast disease, the outright cure for this is getting sufficient iodine (working with your physician); you can either rub it directly on the breast or swallow it in less severe cases. It has also been reported that women who take thyroid, but not iodine, have twice the risk of cancer as those women who take both thyroid and iodine.
It’s important to have the right balance of 2-hydroxyestrogen and 16-hydroxyestrogen. In premenopausal women, if there is more 2-hydroxyestrogen than 16-hydroxyestrogen, breast cancer risk is less. If it’s the other way around, more 16 than 2, breast cancer risk is greater. Eating three or more servings a week of broccoli, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, bok choy, and other cruciferous vegetables helps keep the right balance. You can also get the benefits of these vegetables in a supplement form such as indole-3-carbinol.
2-methoxyestradiol is a very potent anticancer hormone that the body can manufacture. According to research, 2-methoxyestradiol can also inhibit the growth of fibroid cells in the uterus.