Health Journal Online

Tag: cancer

Fighting Cancer with Whole Plant Foods
The foundation of cancer prevention is plants, not pills.

“The vast majority of cancer research is devoted to finding cures, rather than finding new ways to prevent disease. The results of these skewed priorities are plain to see.” It’s been nearly 55 years since President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, yet deaths from the most common cancers in the United States have continued unabated.

“We have been looking at the very nature of cancer in the wrong way. Breast cancer doesn’t begin when a lump is first felt or detected by a mammogram. All the common epithelial cancers (lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, pancreas and ovary), which account for the majority of deaths, have a long latency period—often 20 years or more.” So, it’s not like you were healthy one day, then got cancer the next. You haven’t been healthy—you’ve had cancer growing in you for decades. Indeed, there’s a “bizarre misperception that people are ‘healthy’ until they have actual symptoms of invasive cancer,” but “the barn in which hay is smoldering before it bursts into flames is not a safe place.”

So, what does this professor of pharmacology I’ve been quoting recommend? Drugs, of course. Chemoprevention—putting people on drugs to prevent cancer. The pharmaceutical industry spends tons of money promoting chemoprevention of heart disease and strokes with statins and blood thinners, so why shouldn’t people take drugs every day for the rest of their lives to protect against cancer?

There has to be a better way.

What about using diet and nutrition to prevent and treat cancer? Well, what kind of cancer? There are more than 200 types. But here’s the key: They all share the same hallmarks. In a series of papers cited more than 40,000 times in the biomedical literature, 10 hallmarks of cancer have been identified:
- Increased sensitivity to growth factors
- Evading your body’s tumor suppressors
- Dodging your immune system
- Being able to grow forever
- Tumor-promoting inflammation
- The ability to invade and spread
- The ability to hook up its own blood supply
- The accumulation of DNA mutations
- Disarming the self-destruct mechanisms in place
- Hijacking the cell’s metabolism
And, of course, there are classes of drugs to try to counter each one—chemotherapy agents designed to target each piece of the cancer puzzle. You can see them below and at 2:27 in my video Fighting the Ten Hallmarks of Cancer with Food.

Now, ideally, there would be drugs able to target multiple hallmarks at one time, but that’s not how drugs tend to work. Indeed, “this need to target multiple hallmarks is one of the major reasons why, in the context of cancer research, there are many proponents of investigating plant foods as they can deliver a cocktail of bioactive compounds” that may target most, if not all, of the hallmarks of cancer. Below and at 3:00 in my video, you can see a sampling of compounds found in fruits and vegetables—such as berries, greens, and broccoli—shown to be able to target each of the 10 hallmarks of cancer, at least in a petri dish.

Furthermore, they have the qualities of an ideal chemopreventive agent. If you were to design the perfect candidate, you’d want them to be selective to cancerous or precancerous cells while leaving normal cells alone, be side-effect-free, target most types of cancers, be able to be consumed in a daily diet, be conveniently available almost everywhere, and be relatively inexpensive to boot. Plants meet all these criteria. No wonder people who eat more plant-based foods tend to have lower cancer rates.

To be clear, we aren’t talking about taking supplements containing extracts or puriﬁed phytochemicals, but rather eating whole plant foods themselves—more of a food system–based approach to targeting the hallmarks of cancer. Foods contain thousands of substances that result in vast numbers of possible interactions, yet much of nutritional science “has long been directed towards the impact of single dietary components.” Yes, this kind of reductionist approach can uncover the role of foods or even individual nutrients in disease development, but let’s think about what the optimal research strategy would be to study the effects of bioactive natural plant compounds on disease prevention. Instead of using isolated phytochemicals to manage cancer, why not try whole foods? Sometimes the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, a concept known as food synergy.

Check out this study involving the simultaneous inhibition of a series of cancer stages in breast cancer cells using a phytochemical supercocktail. Two breast cancer cell lines were treated with six different plant compounds individually, and then all together, at levels typically found in the bloodstream after eating foods like broccoli, grapes, soybeans, and turmeric. And while the compounds were ineffective individually, together they significantly suppressed breast cancer cell proliferation by more than 80%, inhibited cancer cell invasion and migration, stopped the cancer cells in their tracks, and eventually killed them all off. The plant compounds did all this without having any deleterious effects on the normal noncancerous cells used as control.

No wonder the foundation of cancer prevention—based on an update of the most extensive report on diet and cancer ever published—is not pills, but plants, as you can see below and at 5:28 in my video.

In other words, cut down on alcohol, soda, meat, and processed junk, and center your diet around whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and beans.

Doctor’s Note

I have dozens of videos on cancer prevention and treatment. Check the related posts below.
Source link
March 11, 2026
Can It Lower Your Cancer Risk?

Does choosing organic over conventional foods protect against cancer? What are the effects of pesticides on cancer risk?

In a review updating the evidence on human exposure and toxicity of pesticides, the body of evidence linking pesticide exposure and cancer is said to be so massive that pesticides’ role in the development of cancer “cannot be doubted.” However, most of the evidence that shows DNA damage from pesticides is from occupational exposure among farmers and workers in the fields, the pesticide industry itself, or those living in high-spray areas, as you can see at 0:35 in my video Pesticides and Cancer Risk.

There is evidence linking non-occupational pesticide exposure to DNA damage—in this case, single- and double-stranded DNA fragmentation in the sperm of men with higher levels of pesticides flowing through their bodies—but that was in China, where the average pesticide concentrations are as much as four times higher than in some other parts of the world.

Another way pesticides could potentially facilitate tumor growth is through adverse eﬀects on anticancer immunity. Natural killer (NK) cells are our body’s first line of white blood cell defense against cancer cells and virus-infected cells. Pesticides have been shown to induce harmful eﬀects on these defender cells, reducing their ability to kill off tumor cells. For example, if you put a bunch of NK cells in a petri dish along with human leukemia cells without any pesticide, your natural killer cells can clean house and wipe out more than half the cancer. But if you drip a tiny bit of pesticide on them, the NK cells are so disabled that the cancer wins the day, as you can see below and at 1:37 in my video.

But how much pesticide are we talking about? The researchers used the maximum level found in people actively spraying pesticides. But what about looking at just the residual pesticides left on conventional produce? Is choosing organic for cancer prevention worth the investment?

Pesticides are detectable in the blood and urine of more than 90% of the U.S. population, regardless of where they work or live. We know it’s from the food we eat because crossover trials where people are switched between consuming conventionally grown foods and organic foods show you can turn on and off urinary concentrations of pesticide metabolites like a light switch. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the pesticides are harming us.

The health consequences of ingesting pesticide residues from conventionally grown foods remain unknown, but a recent study did find that people who self-reported the highest frequency of organic food consumption had about a 25% lower risk of getting cancer. The study is the first of its kind to evaluate the association between frequency of organic food consumption and cancer risk, controlling for a wide array of other factors. Doesn’t it matter that consumers eating organic are younger? The researchers controlled for that and still found significantly lower cancer risk. But maybe organic consumers get less cancer because they are more affluent or more highly educated or skinnier, or maybe they exercise more or eat less meat or smoke less. No, the researchers controlled for all that and still found significantly lower cancer risk in organic consumers. Maybe their diets were different in other ways, though—more fruits and vegetables overall, or less junk food? No, they still found significantly lower cancer risk. The researchers concluded, “Our results indicate that higher organic food consumption is associated with a reduction in the risk of overall cancer.”

That was the most sophisticated study of its type to date, but there was an earlier study that was even bigger, and little evidence was found for a decrease in the incidence of all cancers except for perhaps one kind of blood cancer—non-Hodgkin lymphoma. You can see the data below and at 3:59 in my video.

The data show no difference in cancer overall between those who never choose organic and those who usually or always do; the only significant findings were a lower risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and an increased risk of breast cancer. Is it possible that women who choose organic food are more conscientious about getting screened for breast cancer, and that explains the higher diagnosis rate? We really don’t know.

Of course, what we care about the most is not just cancer but all-cause mortality—the risk of dying prematurely. As it turns out, higher blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane are associated with living a significantly shorter life. How do we cut down on our levels? Decades ago, there was a study that found that the breast milk of a vegetarian mother had less beta-hexachlorocyclohexane than the milk of her non-vegetarian sister, who was also breastfeeding at the time. The vegetarian sister apparently had levels of that pesticide that were lower by about a third, compared with her omnivorous sibling, as you can see below and at 4:48 in my video.

That’s no surprise, since this class of chlorinated pesticides is fat-soluble, so they’re found most frequently in foods of animal origin.

A more recent study failed to look at beta-hexachlorocyclohexane, but it examined polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and found that they were linked to increased mortality risk. Again, the toxins were found in the same kinds of foods: eggs, dairy products, and animal fats. So, it’s no surprise that the blood of those eating vegan was found to be “signiﬁcantly less polluted than omnivores” in terms of a whole series of PCBs, including those found in the study to be associated with increased mortality; but the vegans did not have lower levels of beta-hexachlorocyclohexane.

The bottom line: If you’re worried about the adverse health effects of pesticides and pesticide-type compounds, you may want to lower your intake of animal products. But when it comes to fruits and vegetables, the benefits of eating conventionally grown produce likely outweigh any possible risks from pesticide exposure. So, concerns about pesticide risks shouldn’t discourage us from stuffing our faces with as many fruits and vegetables as possible. That would give us a huge health benefit, whereas the potential lifelong damage of any pesticides on those same fruits and veggies has been estimated to cut only a few minutes off a person’s life, on average, which is nothing compared to the nutritional beneﬁts of eating more fruits and vegetables.

Doctor’s Note

For more on organic foods, see related posts below.

Source link

March 6, 2026
The Effects of Fasting on Cancer

Ever since the days of Hippocrates, 2,400 years ago, fasting has been offered as a treatment for acute and chronic diseases, based on the observation that when people get sick they frequently lose their appetite.

Along with fever, decreased food consumption is one of the most common signs of infection. Often regarded as an undesirable manifestation of sickness, it’s actually an active, beneficial defense mechanism. As I discuss in my video Fasting for Cancer: What about Cachexia, chronic under-nutrition can impair our defenses, but data suggest that, in the short-term, immune function can be enhanced by lowering food intake.

Researchers have shown that the blood from starved mice was nearly eight times better at killing off the invading bacteria in a petri dish, dramatically boosting the capacity of their white blood cells to kill off the pathogens. What about people? And what about cancer?

Does Fasting Help Our Natural Killer Cells Fight Cancer Cells?

When study participants fasted for two weeks on an 80-calorie-a-day diet, not only did their white blood cells show the same kind of boost in bacteria-killing ability and antibody production, but their natural killer cell activity increased by an average of 24%. This is especially interesting because our natural killer cells don’t just help clear infections, but they also kill cancer cells. In fact, that’s how the researchers measured natural killer cell activity; they pitted them against K562 cells, which are human leukemia cells.

Fasting is said to improve anticancer immunosurveillance, or, more poetically, by “stimulating the appetite of the immune system for cancer.” So, why isn’t fasting used more to treat cancer? Because so much about cancer care revolves around keeping people’s weight up to try to counteract the cancer-wasting syndrome.

What Causes Cancer Cachexia?

Until recently, fasting therapy was not considered to be a treatment option in cancer, related to the fact that a common therapeutic goal in palliative cancer treatment is to avoid weight loss and counteract the wasting syndrome known as cachexia, which is the ultimate cause of death in many cancer cases.

Tumors are voracious, rapidly expanding and in need of a lot of energy and protein, so cancer metabolically reprograms the body to start breaking down to feed its tumors. It does this by triggering inflammation throughout the body. It’s not just that people lose their appetite. “The fundamental difference between the weight loss observed in CC [cancer cachexia] and that seen in simple starvation is the lack of reversibility with feeding alone.”

Therapeutic nutritional interventions to correct or reverse cachexia frequently fail. The best treatment for cancer cachexia, therefore, is to treat the cause and cure the cancer. In fact, maybe forcing extra nutrition on cancer patients could be playing right into the tumor’s hands. Like in pregnancy when the fetus gets first dibs on nutrients even at the mother’s expense, the tumor may be first in the feeding line. Maybe our loss of appetite when we get cancer is even a protective response.

Is Chemotherapy Enough?

As I discuss in my video Fasting Before and After Chemotherapy and Radiation, for the past 50 years, chemotherapy has been a major medical treatment for a wide range of cancers. Its main strategy has been largely based on targeting cancer cells, by means of DNA damage caused in part by the production of free radicals. Although these drugs were first believed to be very selective for tumor cells, we eventually learned that normal cells also experience severe chemotherapy-dependent damage, which can lead to dose-limiting side effects, including bone marrow and immune system suppression, fatigue, vomiting, diarrhea, and in some cases, even death.

If you do survive chemotherapy, the DNA damage to normal cells can even lead to new cancers down the road. There are cell-protecting drugs that have been tried to reduce the side effects so you can pump in higher chemo doses, but these drugs have not been shown to increase survival––in part because they may also be protecting the cancer cells. What about instead fasting for cellular protection during cancer treatment?

Fasting and Chemotherapy

Many may not recognize the role fasting can play in cancer prevention and treatment. Short-term fasting before and immediately after chemotherapy may minimize side effects, while, at the same time, it may actually make cancer cells more sensitive to treatment. That’s exciting!

During deprivation, healthy cells switch from growth to maintenance and repair, but tumor cells are unable to slow down their unbridled growth, due to growth-promoting mutations that led them to become cancer cells in the first place. This inability to adapt to starvation may represent an important Achilles’ heel for many types of cancer cells.

As a consequence of these differential responses of healthy cells versus cancer cells to short-term fasting, chemotherapy causes more DNA damage and cell suicide in tumor cells, while potentially leaving healthy cells unharmed. Thus, short-term fasting may protect healthy cells against the toxic assault of chemotherapy and cause tumor cells to be more sensitive––or at least that’s the theory.

Researchers found that, in rodents, fasting alone appears to work as well as chemotherapy. What’s more, unbridled tumor growth was also knocked down by radiation therapy—and even more so after the combination of radiation and alternate-day fasting. However, alternate-day fasting alone seemed to do as well as radiation. These data are exciting, but for mice with breast cancer. What about people?

Fasting Put to the Test Against Cancers

As I discuss in my video Fasting Before and After Chemotherapy Put to the Test, several patients diagnosed with a wide variety of cancers elected to undertake fasting prior to chemotherapy and share their experiences. They reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting and felt better across the board, with zero vomiting. The weight lost during the few days of fasting was quickly recovered by most of the patients and did not lead to any discernable harm. So, overall, fasting under care seems safe and potentially able to ameliorate side effects.

In a randomized clinical study, breast and ovarian cancer patients fasted from 36 hours before chemotherapy until 24 hours after, and fasting did appear to improve quality of life and fatigue. However, another study found no such beneficial effects. There did appear to perhaps be less bone marrow toxicity, given the higher counts of red blood cells and platelet-making cells. But no benefit when it came to saving white blood cells—the immune system cells—so that was a disappointment. Perhaps they didn’t fast long enough?

A systematic review of 22 studies found that, overall, fasting may not only reduce chemotherapy side effects (like organ damage, immune suppression, and chemotherapy-induced death), but it may also suppress tumor progression, including tumor growth and metastasis, resulting in improved survival. But, nearly all the studies were on mice and dogs. The studies on humans were limited to evaluating safety and side effects. The tumor-suppression effects of fasting––for example, its influence on tumor growth, metastasis and prognosis––sadly, were not evaluated.

Does Fasting Make Chemo More Effective?

As I discuss in my video Fasting-Mimicking Diet Before and After Chemotherapy, short-term food withdrawal during chemotherapy may begin to solve the long-standing problem with most cancer treatments: how to kill the tumor without killing the patient. Short-term fasting––for example, for 48 hours before chemo and 24 hours afterwards––may reduce side effects, so-called “chemotherapy-induced toxicity.” However, the potential tumor-suppressing effects of fasting have still not been thoroughly evaluated.

Some argue that reducing chemo’s side effects alone could improve efficacy, since patients could withstand higher doses. For example, the heart and kidney damage associated with the widely prescribed anti-cancer drugs limit their full therapeutic potential. It’s not clear, though, that maximizing the tolerated chemo dose would achieve longer survival or better quality of life. For now, I think we should just be satisfied with the fewer side effects for fewer side effects’ sake.

How Does Fasting Work?

Fasting can reduce the levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a cancer-promoting growth hormone. The reduced levels of IGF-1 mediate the differential protection of normal cells and cancer cells in response to fasting and improve chemo’s ability to kill cancer but spare normal cells.

So, reducing IGF-1 signaling may provide dual benefits by protecting normal tissues while reducing tumor progression. It may even help prevent the cancer in the first place. But fasting isn’t the only way to drop IGF-1 levels: A few days of fasting can cut levels in half, but that’s largely because protein intake is being cut. Protein is a key determinant of circulating IGF-1 levels in humans––suggesting that “reduced protein intake may become an important component of anticancer and antiaging dietary interventions,” particularly a reduction in animal protein.

Lowering Protein Intake to Lower IGF-1

If you compare those who eat strictly plant-based diets and get about the recommended daily intake of protein (0.8 grams per kg of body weight) to individuals who are just as slender but consume the higher amount of protein more typical to Americans, going on a calorie-restricted diet may lower IGF-1 a little, but eating a plant-based diet can lower it even more than going low calorie.

So, not only may a diet centered around whole plant foods down-regulate IGF-1 activity, potentially slowing the aging process, but it may be a way of turning anti-aging genes against cancer.

Source link

December 10, 2025
Prostate Cancer and Mushrooms

What can reishi mushrooms, shiitake mushroom extracts, and whole, powdered white mushrooms do for cancer patients?

“A regular intake of mushrooms can make us healthier, fitter, and happier, and help us live longer,” but what is the evidence for all that? “Mushrooms are widely cited for their medicinal qualities, yet very few human intervention studies have been done using contemporary guidelines.”

There is a compound called lentinan, extracted from shiitake mushrooms. To get about an ounce, you have to distill around 400 pounds of shiitakes, about 2,000 cups of mushrooms. Researchers injected the compound into cancer patients to see what happens. The pooled response from a dozen small clinical trials found that the objective response rate was significantly improved when lentinan was added to chemotherapy regimens for lung cancer. “Objective response rate” means, for example, tumor shrinkage, but what we really care about is survival and quality of life. Does it actually make cancer patients live any longer or any better? Well, those in the lentinan group suffered less chemo-related toxicity to their gut and bone marrow, so that alone might be reason enough to use it. But what about improving survival?

I was excited to see that lentinan may significantly improve survival rates for a type of leukemia. Indeed, researchers found that adding lentinan to the standards of care increased average survival, reduced cachexia (cancer-associated muscle wasting), and improved cage-side health. Wait, what? This was improved survival for brown Norwegian rats, so that the so-called clinical beneﬁt only applies if you’re a rat or a veterinarian.

A compilation of 17 actual human clinical studies did find improvements in one-year survival in advanced cancer patients but no significant difference in the likelihood of living out to two years. Even the compilations of studies that purport that lentinan offers a significant advantage in terms of survival are just talking about statistical significance. As you can see below and at 2:15 in my video White Button Mushrooms for Prostate Cancer, it’s hard to even tell these survival curves apart.

Lentinan improved survival by an average of 25 days. Now, 25 days is 25 days, but we “should evaluate assertions made by companies about the miraculous properties of medicinal mushrooms very critically.”

Lentinan has to be injected intravenously. What about mushroom extract supplements you can just take yourself? Researchers have noted that shiitake mushroom extract is available online for the treatment of prostate cancer for approximately $300 a month, so it’s got to be good, right? Men who regularly eat mushrooms do seem to be at lower risk for getting prostate cancer—and apparently not just because they eat less meat or consume more fruits and vegetables in general. So, why not give a shiitake mushroom extract a try? Because it doesn’t work. On its own, it is “ineffective in the treatment of clinical prostate cancer.” Researchers wrote that “the results demonstrate that claims for CAM [complementary and alternative medicine], particularly for herbal and food supplement remedies, can be easily and quickly tested.” Put something to the test? What a concept! Maybe it should be required before individuals spend large amounts of money on unproven treatments, or, in this case, a disproven treatment.

What about God’s mushroom (also known as the mushroom of life) or reishi mushrooms? “Conclusions: No signiﬁcant anticancer effects were observed”—not even a single partial response. Are we overthinking it? Plain white button mushroom extracts can kill off prostate cancer cells, at least in a petri dish, but so could the fancy God’s mushroom, but that didn’t end up working in people. You don’t know if plain white button mushrooms work on real people until you put them to the test.

What I like about this study is that the researchers didn’t use a proprietary extract. They just used regular whole mushrooms, dried and powdered, the equivalent of a half cup to a cup and a half of fresh white button mushrooms a day, in other words, a totally doable amount. The researchers gave them to men with “biochemically recurrent prostate cancer”—the men had already gotten a prostatectomy or radiation in an attempt to cut or burn out all the cancer, but it returned and started growing, as evidenced by a rise in PSA levels, an indicator of prostate cancer progression.

Of the 26 patients who had gotten the button mushroom powder, 4 appeared to respond, meaning they got a drop in PSA levels by more than 50% after starting the mushrooms, as you can see here and at 4:31 in my video.

In the next graphic, below and at 4:22, you can see where the four men who responded started out in the months leading up to starting the mushrooms. Patient 2 (“Pt 2”) was my favorite. He had an exponential increase in PSA levels for a year, then he started some plain white mushrooms, and boom! His PSA level dropped to zero and stayed down. A similar response was seen with Patient 1. Patient 4 had a partial response, before his cancer took off again, and Patient 3 appeared to have a delayed partial response.

Now, in the majority of cases, PSA levels continued to rise, not dipping at all. But even if there is only a 1-in-18 chance you’ll be like Patients 1 and 2, seen below and at 5:12, you may get a prolonged, complete response that continues.

We aren’t talking about weighing the risks of some toxic chemotherapy for the small chance of benefit, but just eating some inexpensive, easy, tasty plain white mushrooms every day. Yes, the study didn’t have a control group, so it may have just been a coincidence, but rising PSAs in post-prostatectomy patients are almost always indicators of cancer progression. And, what’s the downside of adding white button mushrooms to your diet?

In these two patients, their PSA levels became undetectable, suggesting that the cancer disappeared altogether. They had already gone through surgery, had gotten their primary tumor removed, along with their entire prostate, and had already gone through radiation to try to clean up any cancer that remained, and yet the cancer appeared to be surging back—until, that is, they started a little plain mushroom powder.

Doctor’s Note

If you missed the previous blog, check out Medicinal Mushrooms for Cancer Survival.

Also check out Friday Favorites: Mushrooms for Prostate Cancer and Cancer Survival.

For more on mushrooms, see Breast Cancer vs. Mushrooms and Is It Safe to Eat Raw Mushrooms?.

For more videos on prostate cancer, check the related posts below.

Source link

November 29, 2025
Cancer Survival and Medicinal Mushrooms

Did the five randomized controlled trials of reishi mushrooms in cancer patients show benefits in terms of tumor response rate, survival time, or quality of life?

Can mushrooms be medicinal? Mushroom-based products make up a sizable chunk of the $50 billion supplement market. “This proﬁtable trade provides a powerful incentive for companies to test the credulity of their customers and unsupported assertions have come to deﬁne the medical mushroom business.” For example, companies marketing herbal medicines “exploit references to studies on mice in their promotion of mushroom capsules and throat sprays for treating all kinds of ailments”—but we aren’t mice.

It wouldn’t be surprising if mushrooms had some potent properties. After all, fungi are where we’ve gotten a number of drugs, not the least of which is penicillin, as well as the cholesterol-lowering drug lovastatin and the powerful immunosuppressant drug cyclosporin. Still don’t think a little mushroom can have pharmacological effects? Don’t forget they can produce some of our most powerful poisons, too, like the toxic Carolina false morel that looks rather toadstooly, while others, as you can see here and at 1:15 in my video Medicinal Mushrooms for Cancer Survival, have a more angelic look like the destroying angel—that is its actual name—and as little as a single teaspoon can cause a lingering, painful death.

We should have respect for the pharmacological potential of mushrooms, but what can they do that’s good for us? Well, consuming shiitake mushrooms each day improves human immunity. Giving people just one or two dried shiitake mushrooms a day (about the weight-equivalent of five to ten fresh ones) for four weeks resulted in an increase in proliferation of gamma-delta T lymphocytes and doubled the proliferation of natural killer cells. Gamma-delta T cells act as a ﬁrst line of immunological defense, and, even better, natural killer cells kill cancer. Shiitake mushrooms did all this while lowering markers of systemic inflammation.

Oyster mushroom extracts don’t seem to work as well, but what we care about is whether mushrooms can actually affect cancer outcomes. Shiitakes have yet to show a cancer survival benefit, but what about reishi mushrooms, which have been used as a cancer treatment throughout Asia for centuries?

What does the science say about reishi mushrooms for cancer treatment? A meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials showed that patients who had been given reishi mushroom supplements along with chemotherapy and radiation were more likely to respond favorably, compared to chemotherapy/radiotherapy on its own. Although adding a reishi mushroom extract improved tumor response rates, “the data failed to demonstrate a signiﬁcant effect on tumour shrinkage when it was used alone,” without chemo and radiation. So, they aren’t recommended as a single treatment, but rather an adjunct treatment for patients with advanced cancer.

“Response rate” just means the tumor shrinks. Do reishi mushrooms actually improve survival or quality of life? We don’t have convincing data suggesting reishi mushroom products improve survival, but those randomized to reishi were found to have “a relatively better quality of life after treatment than those in the control group.” That’s a win as far as I’m concerned.

What about other mushrooms? Although whole shiitake mushrooms haven’t been put to the test for cancer yet, researchers have said that lentinan, a compound extracted from shiitakes, “completely inhibits” the growth of a certain kind of sarcoma in mice. But, in actuality, it only worked in one strain of mice and failed in nine others. So, are we more like the 90% of mouse strains in which it didn’t work? We need human trials—and we finally got them. There are data on nearly 10,000 cancer patients who have been treated with the shiitake mushroom extract injected right into their veins. What did the researchers find? We’ll find out next.

Doctor’s Note

Stay tuned for White Button Mushrooms for Prostate Cancer.

Also check out Friday Favorites: Mushrooms for Prostate Cancer and Cancer Survival.

For more on mushrooms, see Breast Cancer vs. Mushrooms and Is It Safe to Eat Raw Mushrooms?.

Source link

November 26, 2025
Elevating pancreatic cancer care | Dietitian Connection
Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) affects many patients with pancreatic cancer, yet it is often overlooked in this patient populations, which leads to malnutrition. In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Shelby Yaceczko, DCN, RDN, CNSC. Yacescko is a supporting author on a recently published White Paper on the topic, and she explains what EPI is, how to screen for and treat the condition, and the essential role of dietitians in an interdisciplinary care team managing these patients.

Hosted by Kristin Houts

Biography

Dr. Shelby Yaceczko, DCN, RDN-AP, CNSC is an expert registered dietitian nutritionist, a Doctor of Clinical Nutrition and has research interests in dietitian provider autonomy in advanced-level practice, gastrointestinal cancer, and complex gastrointestinal surgery conditions. She has developed numerous hospital-based nutrition programs and protocols aimed to improve nutrition care in the ICU and ambulatory care settings. Her expertise focuses on managing disorders of the pancreas, stomach, liver, gallbladder, bile ducts, esophagus, and small and large bowel. Yacescko holds leadership roles in national nutrition organizations involved in nutrition support and gastrointestinal diseases and is the founder of a digital health cancer wellness company.
In this episode, we discuss:

How overlapping GI symptoms, lack of standardized screening tools, and limited guidelines contribute to missed EPI diagnoses and delayed treatment

What inspired the development of the White Paper

How to bring EPI management into everyday practice

The ready-to-use checklists, screening forms, and EHR templates within the White Paper designed to standardize treatment
Additional resources:
- A link to the white paper can be found here.
- Canopy Cancer Collective’s resource page can be found here.
- Learn more about diagnosis and management of EPI at EssentialsofEPI.com.
Supported by

The content, products and/or services referred to in this podcast are intended for Health Care Professionals only and are not, and are not intended to be, medical advice, which should be tailored to your individual circumstances. The content is for your information only, and we advise that you exercise your own judgement before deciding to use the information provided. Professional medical advice should be obtained before taking action. The reference to particular products and/or services in this episode does not constitute any form of endorsement. Please see  here  for terms and conditions.
Source link
November 21, 2025
What Type of Cancer Was He Diagnosed With and Is He Still Sick?

James Van Der Beek’s unexpected cameo during the Dawson’s Creek reunion concert has fans once again asking tough questions: what type of cancer is the actor battling, and is he still fighting the disease?

The 48-year-old star, forever remembered as Dawson Leery in the hit ’90s teen drama, first revealed in 2024 that he was facing a serious health battle.

Though he couldn’t join the live event in New York, his virtual appearance reignited speculation and worry among fans, many of whom took to social media to express both concern and support.

What Does James Van Der Beek Have?

In an interview with People in November 2024, James Van Der Beek confirmed that he is battling Stage 3 colorectal cancer.

‘I have colorectal cancer. I’ve been privately dealing with this diagnosis and have been taking steps to resolve it, with the support of my incredible family,’ the actor said.

This form of cancer affects the colon or rectum and is often detected during routine screenings such as colonoscopies. According to Mayo Clinic, symptoms can include persistent changes in bowel habits, abdominal discomfort, and weight loss without trying.

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers diagnosed worldwide, and early detection is considered key in improving survival rates. Van Der Beek’s openness about his illness has drawn attention to the importance of awareness, especially among younger adults who might overlook potential symptoms.

James Van Der Beek’s Illness Timeline

The actor first went public with his diagnosis in 2024, stating that he was undergoing treatment while continuing to focus on his family life. Van Der Beek and his wife, Kimberly, share six children, and he has often credited them as his motivation during his health struggles.

In September 2025, Van Der Beek was due to appear at a one-night-only live reading of the Dawson’s Creek pilot script at the Richard Rodgers Theatre in New York. The event was organised as a reunion for fans and a fundraiser for the charity F Cancer. Just days before the reunion, Van Der Beek announced that he would not be attending in person after suffering from separate stomach viruses on top of his cancer battle.

Although unable to take the stage, he surprised fans with a pre-recorded video appearance. In the clip, he thanked the audience, cast, and organisers, introducing Lin-Manuel Miranda as his understudy for the evening.

@goss.ie #JamesVanDerBeek made an unexpected virtual appearance during the #DawsonsCreek reunion charity event on Monday night, after previously withdrawing due to illness. The star-studded charity event featured a live reading of the show’s pilot episode and brought together beloved Dawson’s Creek cast members including Michelle Williams, Katie Holmes, Joshua Jackson, Mary Beth Peil, John Wesley Shipp, Mary-Margaret Humes, Nina Repeta, Kerr Smith, Meredith Monroe, and Busy Philipps ❤️ Directed by Dawson’s Creek alum Jason Moore, the event supported F Cancer and also honored Van Der Beek, who was diagnosed with stage 3 colorectal cancer last year. 🎥 @backtoyoubobpod #dawsonscreekreunion ♬ original sound – Goss.ie

Is James Van Der Beek Still Sick?

The question ‘is James Van Der Beek sick?’ has become a trending search as fans follow his health updates. His absence from the reunion highlighted that he is still managing illness alongside treatment. While the actor has not disclosed specific details of his current medical regimen, his comments and public appearances confirm that his fight with cancer is ongoing.

Support from his wife Kimberly and their children has been central to his journey. The family have shared glimpses of their life on social media, showing both the challenges and moments of hope as he continues treatment.

Dawson’s Creek Reunion and Public Support

The Dawson’s Creek reunion drew significant attention not only for nostalgia but also for its charitable cause. The event raised funds for F Cancer, an organisation dedicated to cancer education and early detection.

Fans responded with strong messages of support for Van Der Beek after his video message was played at the theatre.

Lin-Manuel Miranda’s appearance as Dawson Leery was also widely discussed, but it was Van Der Beek’s heartfelt words that left a lasting impression. Many fans took to social media to express admiration for his strength and resilience.

Originally published on IBTimes UK

Source link

September 29, 2025
Hospital Under Fire After Doctors Blame Parents for Child’s Condition — Later Revealed as Cancer

A toddler’s heartbreaking death exposes NHS failings as doctors wrongly accused parents of causing a facial lump, delaying cancer diagnosis by months in a case reigniting debates on child protection protocols and medical accountability.

Delilah-Rai Reid-Floyd, just 19 months old, passed away on 9 August 2023 after a pea-sized mass discovered in January ballooned into aggressive soft tissue cancer, with her mother Kayleigh Reid alleging neglect through misdiagnosis and three-month waits.

As investigations unfold into Russells Hall Hospital and Birmingham Children’s Hospital, families demand swifter scans and less hasty abuse assumptions to prevent such tragedies in the UK’s overburdened health system.

Mum Spots Lump Sparking Urgent GP Referral

Kayleigh Reid noticed a pea-sized lump on her daughter Delilah-Rai’s face while bathing her on 30 January 2023, prompting an immediate doctor’s visit the next day. The GP referred the one-year-old to Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, suspecting non-accidental injury without initial scans, a move that left the family reeling from unfounded blame.

This hasty assumption sidelined potential tumour checks, as Delilah-Rai awaited transfer to Birmingham Children’s Hospital amid growing parental distress.

Doctors Misdiagnose Growth as Injury

At Russells Hall on 9 May 2023, a CT scan revealed a paranasal cystic lesion, leading to an ENT specialist referral, but a three-month wait for Birmingham Children’s Hospital stalled progress until July.

A biopsy on 16 July 2023 initially diagnosed desmoid fibromatosis as non-cancerous on 30 July, cancelling scheduled surgery on 5 August, only for tests to confirm aggressive soft tissue cancer days later.

Kayleigh Reid later stated, ‘With so many delays and misdiagnoses throughout, I believe the NHS neglected her and didn’t give her the care she deserved.’

Cancer Ravages Toddler as Condition Declines

Delilah-Rai’s condition deteriorated swiftly post-diagnosis, with the tumour spreading aggressively, and she passed away peacefully at home on 9 August 2023, days after her 19-month milestone.

The ‘sweetest’ and ‘cheekiest’ girl, known for her loving nature, endured unnecessary pain from postponed interventions, as her mother believes earlier action could have improved survival odds. X post from The Sun Health on 13 September 2025 captured public outrage: ‘Girl, 1, dies of cancer after docs ‘assumed facial lump was caused by parents’.

Hospitals Launch Internal Reviews

Both The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust and Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust initiated reviews on 12 September 2025, vowing to share findings with the family and implement learnings to avoid future errors.

Diane Wale, chief executive at Dudley Group, expressed, ‘On behalf of the Trust, I would like to extend our sincere condolences to Delilah’s family. We will look into the issues raised and speak with Delilah’s family to better understand the circumstances surrounding this sad loss.’ Kayleigh Reid is pursuing legal action against the trusts, supported by a GoFundMe raising funds for awareness.

Mother’s Campaign Raises Alarm Delays, Missteps

Kayleigh, reflecting on her ‘very very loving’ daughter, aims to spotlight desmoid fibromatosis and soft tissue cancers affecting young children, urging faster diagnostics amid 1,800 annual UK under-five cases. She affirmed, ‘Going forward I wish to raise more awareness for this cruel disease, but I also want the NHS held accountable for their part they played in my daughter’s passing.’

Birmingham Trust spokesperson added, ‘The Trust would like to offer Delilah-Rai’s family our deepest sympathies… An internal review is now under way.’ This case, resurfacing on 12 September 2025, underscores urgent calls for reformed referral timelines, with experts noting abuse suspicions can eclipse medical urgency in 20% of paediatric assessments.

Families like the Reids highlight how such oversights compound grief, pushing for mandatory rapid imaging in lump cases. As probes progress, Kayleigh’s resolve ensures Delilah-Rai’s story drives systemic change, preventing other parents from enduring similar heartbreak in Britain’s strained NHS landscape.

Originally published on IBTimes UK

Source link

September 16, 2025
Eating to Downregulate a Gene for Metastatic Cancer

Women with breast cancer should include the “liberal culinary use of cruciferous vegetables.”

Both the Women’s Intervention Nutrition Study and the Women’s Health Initiative study showed that women randomized to a lower-fat diet enjoyed improved breast cancer survival. However, in the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living Study, women with breast cancer were also randomized to drop their fat intake down to 15 to 20 percent of calories, yet there was no difference in breast cancer relapse or death after seven years.

Any time there’s an unexpected result, you must question whether the participants actually followed through with study instructions. For instance, if you randomized people to stop smoking and they ended up with the same lung cancer rates as those in the group who weren’t instructed to quit, one likely explanation is that the group told to stop smoking didn’t actually stop. In the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living Study, both the dietary intervention group and the control group started out at about 30 percent of calories from fat. Then, the diet group was told to lower their fat intake to 15 to 20 percent of calories. By the end of the study, they had in fact gone from 28.5 percent fat to 28.9 percent fat, as you can see below and at 1:16 in my video The Food That Can Downregulate a Metastatic Cancer Gene. They didn’t even reduce their fat intake. No wonder they didn’t experience any breast cancer benefit.

When you put together all the trials on the effect of lower-fat diets on breast cancer survival, even including that flawed study, you see a reduced risk of breast cancer relapse and a reduced risk of death. In conclusion, going on a low-fat diet after a breast cancer diagnosis “can improve breast cancer survival by reducing the risk of recurrence.” We may now know why: by targeting metastasis-initiating cancer cells through the fat receptor CD36.

We know that the cancer-spreading receptor is upregulated by saturated fat. Is there anything in our diet that can downregulate it? Broccoli.

Broccoli appears to decrease CD36 expression by as much as 35 percent (in mice). Of all fruits and vegetables, cruciferous vegetables like broccoli were the only ones associated with significantly less total risk of cancer and not just getting cancer in the first place, as you can see here and at 2:19 in my video.

Those with bladder cancer who eat broccoli also appear to live longer than those who don’t, and those with lung cancer who eat more cruciferous veggies appear to survive longer, too.

For example, as you can see below and at 2:45 in my video, one year out, about 75 percent of lung cancer patients eating more than one serving of cruciferous vegetables a day were still alive (the top line in red), whereas, by then, most who had been getting less than half a serving a day had already died from their cancer (the bottom line in green).

Ovarian cancer, too. Intake of cruciferous vegetables “signiﬁcantly favored survival,” whereas “a survival disadvantage was shown for meats.” Milk also appeared to double the risk of dying. Below and at 3:21 in my video are the survival graphs. Eight years out, about 40 percent of ovarian cancer patients who averaged meat or milk every day were deceased (the boldest line, on the bottom), compared to only about 20 percent who had meat or milk only a few times a week at most (the faintest line, on the top).

Now, it could be that the fat and cholesterol in meat increased circulating estrogen levels, or it could be because of meat’s growth hormones or all its carcinogens. And galactose, the sugar naturally found in milk, may be directly toxic to the ovary. Dairy has all its hormones, too. However, the lowering of risk with broccoli and the increasing of risk with meat and dairy are also consistent with the CD36 mechanism of cancer spread.

Researchers put it to the test in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who were given pulverized broccoli sprouts or a placebo. The average death rate was lower in the broccoli sprout group compared to the placebo group. After a month, 18 percent of the placebo group had died, but none in the broccoli group. By three months, another 25 percent of the placebo group had died, but still not a single death in the broccoli group. And by six months, 43 percent of the remaining patients in the placebo group were deceased, along with the first 25 percent of the broccoli group. Unfortunately, even though the capsules for both groups looked the same, “true blinding was not possible,” and the patients knew which group they were in “because the pulverized broccoli sprouts could be easily distinguished from the methylcellulose [placebo] through their characteristic smell and taste.” So, we can’t discount the placebo effect. What’s more, the study participants weren’t properly randomized “because many of the patients refused to participate unless they were placed into the [active] treatment group.” That’s understandable, but it makes for a less rigorous result. A little broccoli can’t hurt, though, and it may help. It’s the lack of downsides of broccoli consumption that leads to “Advising Women Undergoing Treatment for Breast Cancer” to include the “liberal culinary use of cruciferous vegetables,” for example.

It’s the same for reducing saturated fat. The title of an editorial in a journal of the National Cancer Institute asked: “Is It Time to Give Breast Cancer Patients a Prescription for a Low-Fat Diet?” “Although counseling women to consume a healthy diet after breast cancer diagnosis is certainly warranted for general health, the existing data still fall a bit short of proving this will help reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality.” But what do we have to lose? After all, it’s still certainly warranted for general health.

Source link

July 16, 2025
Eating to Help Control Cancer Metastasis

Randomized controlled trials show that lowering saturated fat intake can lead to improved breast cancer survival.

The leading cause of cancer-related death is metastasis. Cancer kills because cancer spreads. The five-year survival rate for women with localized breast cancer is nearly 99 percent, for example, but that falls to only 27 percent in women with metastasized cancer. Yet, “our ability to eﬀectively treat metastatic disease has not changed signiﬁcantly in the past few decades…” The desperation is evident when there are such papers as “Targeting Metastasis with Snake Toxins: Molecular Mechanisms.”

We have built-in defenses, natural killer cells that roam the body, killing off budding tumors. But, as I’ve discussed, there’s a fat receptor called CD36 that appears to be essential for cancer cells to spread, and these cancer cells respond to dietary fat intake, but not all fat.

CD36 is upregulated by palmitic acid, as much as a 50-fold increase within 12 hours of consumption, as shown below and at 1:13 in my video How to Help Control Cancer Metastasis with Diet.

Palmitic acid is a saturated fat made from palm oil that can be found in junk food, but it is most concentrated in meat and dairy. This may explain why, when looking at breast cancer mortality and dietary fat, “there was no difference in risk of breast-cancer-speciﬁc death…for women in the highest versus the lowest category of total fat intake,” but there’s about a 50 percent greater likelihood of dying of breast cancer with higher intake of saturated fat. Researchers conclude: “These meta-analyses have shown that saturated fat intake negatively impacts breast cancer survival.”

This may also explain why “intake of high-fat dairy, but not low-fat dairy, was related to a higher risk of mortality after breast cancer diagnosis.” If a protein in dairy, like casein, was the problem, skim milk might be even worse, but that wasn’t the case. It’s the saturated butterfat, perhaps because it triggered that cancer-spreading mechanism induced by CD36. Women who consumed one or more daily servings of high-fat dairy had about a 50 percent higher risk of dying from breast cancer.

We see the same with dairy and its relationship to prostate cancer survival. Researchers found that “drinking high-fat milk increased the risk of dying from prostate cancer by as much as 600% in patients with localized prostate cancer. Low-fat milk was not associated with such an increase in risk.” So, it seems to be the animal fat, rather than the animal protein, and these findings are consistent with analyses from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS), conducted by Harvard researchers.

There is even more evidence that the fat receptor CD36 is involved. The “risk of colorectal cancer for meat consumption” increased from a doubling to an octupling—that is, the odds of getting cancer multiplied eightfold for those who carry a specific type of CD36 gene. So, “Is It Time to Give Breast Cancer Patients a Prescription for a Low-Fat Diet?” A cancer diagnosis is often referred to as a ‘teachable moment’ when patients are motivated to make changes to their lifestyle, and so provision of evidence-based guidelines is essential.”

In a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial, researchers set out “to test the effect of a dietary intervention designed to reduce fat intake in women with resected, early-stage breast cancer,” meaning the women had had their breast cancer surgically removed. As shown below and at 4:02 in my video, the study participants in the dietary intervention group dropped their fat intake from about 30 percent of calories down to 20 percent, reduced their saturated fat intake by about 40 percent, and maintained it for five years. “After approximately 5 years of follow-up, women in the dietary intervention group had a 24% lower risk of relapse”—a 24-percent lower risk of the cancer coming back—“than those in the control group.”

That was the WINS study, the Women’s Intervention Nutrition Study. Then there was the Women’s Health Initiative study, where, again, women were randomized to lower their fat intake down to 20 percent of calories, and, again, “those randomized to a low-fat dietary pattern had increased breast cancer overall survival. Meaning: A dietary change may be able to influence breast cancer outcome.” What’s more, not only was their breast cancer survival significantly greater, but the women also experienced a reduction in heart disease and a reduction in diabetes.

Source link

July 13, 2025