View Full Version : Diabetes drugs tied to pancreatic cancer risk

02-04-12, 12:06 PM
By Genevra Pittman
NEW YORK | Tue Jan 31, 2012

(Reuters Health) - A new study links the diabetes drug metformin to fewer cases of pancreatic cancer -- at least in women -- but finds other diabetes medications are associated with a higher risk of the disease.

The differences in medication history among people who did or didn't get pancreatic cancer were small, researchers said, and it's unclear why the drugs might affect cancer risks in men and women differently.

Still, the new finding is in line with previous research suggesting that metformin may decrease the risk of multiple cancers, said Dr. Peter Butler, a diabetes researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, who wasn't involved in the new study.

"One theme that seems to be coming through... is that the oldest drug we have for diabetes, metformin, is undoubtedly the best drug we have for diabetes," he told Reuters Health.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-diabetes-drugs-tied-pancreatic-cancer-idUSTRE80U0ZQ20120131?feedType=nl&feedName=ushealth1100

02-04-12, 02:17 PM
. . . it's unclear why the drugs might affect cancer risks in men and women differently.

This is one of the big problems with medical research. They simply do not understand individual differences. A recent study (i read that here, didn't i?) said that in many ways, men and women are more different physiologically than they are alike.

I am a big fan of Raymond Francis (http://beyondhealth.com/BH_Model.asp). He states there is ONE cause of disease: Cellular malfunction. He believes there are two causes: Deficiency (nutrition largely) and Toxins.

But individual differences are what drive this. There may be one cause of autism, the cellular malfunction, and it might be driven by a deficient diet and/or toxins, but an individual's genetics and predisposition may be different in how they arrive there. There is evidence that autism can be caused by vaccines. But most children that get vaccines and don't become autistic. And clearly not all autism is caused by vaccines (which, is why the medical world discounts the connection). Some autism may be genetic from birth (although that still doesn't rule out that the gene was "turned on" by a deficiency or toxin during gestation or even before the mother got pregnant). Sometimes it seems to occur a few years after birth due to some outside influence.

Some folks with autism improve if they are put on a diet that is free of gluten and/or casein. Some folks improve with other environmental factor. Some improve with CranioSacral therapy.

I remember reading a book years ago of some people who had been diagnosed as autistic (some severely) and were able to improve with diet and other support. A few of these folks were able to live normal lives after the intervention (sorry, i don't remember the particulars). What stuck in my mind was these folks saying that their senses were so hyper-acute (particularly hearing but also with light and smell and touch) that these senses would totally block out their ability to focus on anything else and connect/communicate with people. When that sensitivity was reduced, they were able to go on to live relatively normal lives.

My point is that in all different medical issues, there must be individual differences driving the problem. Medical science generally does not seem to recognize this and so overlooks some significant issues. So many people having side effects from medical intervention are told that it was "coincidence" that they had those effects. And so many people are given meds that will mask symptoms rather than try to find a cause.

Statins are clearly a problem for many people, yet so many doctors still believe in their efficacy. I have heard one doctor say he believes they should be added to the water like fluoride (don't even get me started!) I believe that both Stephen X and Mellowsong have said that in spite of their normal cholesterol levels, their docs have wanted them to take statins "because of their age" or as a "preventative" measure. If these docs knew what they were doing, i would call them purely evil. As they probably don't understand, they are merely incompetent.

I have no doubt that these diabetic drugs fall into the same category, and there are folks out there who do not need these drugs but docs are prescribing for various weird reasons.

02-04-12, 03:39 PM
Well said, Katee.

02-04-12, 04:18 PM
Wish I could have put these thoughts into words as well as this, Katee!

02-04-12, 05:00 PM
Ditto what Maurya said!