« Older Entries

Nutella: good or bad?

Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 2.29.36 PM

Magical Nonsense

Dr. Joe Schwarcz: Cancer-cure ‘magicians’ prey on the desperate


Screen Shot 2016-12-16 at 10.50.29 AM

Alkaline Nonsense

DNAIt is so seductively simple.  If you want to avoid cancer, just make sure your body is “alkaline!”  Here is the rationale.  When a cell becomes cancerous it reduces its use of oxygen and cranks up its production of acids.  These conditions then allow such cells to multiply quickly.  To counter this, you have to ensure that cells get an adequate supply of oxygen and that the acids produced are neutralized.  How?  By introducing sources of oxygen such as hydrogen peroxide or ozone into the body and consuming “alkaline” foods.  If cancer has already taken a foothold, then it may be necessary to dose up on cesium, the “most alkaline nutritional mineral.”  So simple, and so wrong!

As so often happens, promoters of nonsensical therapies seize a few filaments of scientific fact and weave these into a tangled web that ensnares the desperate and the scientifically confused.  In this case, it all starts with the work of German physician Otto Warburg who received the 1931 Nobel Prize in medicine for his work on cellular metabolism.  Warburg showed that that the growth of malignant cells requires markedly smaller amounts of oxygen than that of normal cells and that their metabolism follows an “anaerobic” pathway leading to the production of lactic acid.  This notion lay dormant until the 1980’s when Dr. Keith Brewer, a physicist with no medical training, used it to support his perplexing theory of how potassium and calcium control the transport of glucose and oxygen into cells, and how irritation of the cell’s membrane interferes with this transport system.  The result, Brewer maintained, is the “Warburg effect,” which lowers the cell’s pH, reduces its oxygen supply, and causes changes in DNA characteristic of cancer.  He then went on to claim that cesium’s chemically similarity to potassium allows it to be readily taken up by cells, but that unlike potassium, it does not transport glucose into cells while allowing oxygen to enter.  As a result, cancer cells are enriched in oxygen, deprived of glucose, form less lactic acid, become more alkaline, and as a consequence, die.  Sounds good, but Brewer got the “Warburg effect” all wrong.  Cancer cells do shift to a mode of metabolism that doesn’t use oxygen, but this happens even in the presence of oxygen!

Brewer went on to buttress his argument by claiming that cancer is almost unknown among the Hopi Indians of Arizona, the highland Indians of Peru and the Hunza of North Pakistan.  Why?  Because due to the cesium in the soil, they have a “high pH” diet.  Whether these people actually do have a lower cancer rate is questionable, and even if this were the case, it could not be ascribed to cesium in the diet without further investigation.  But then to take the cake (undoubtedly cesium enriched) Brewer in 1984 published a paper with the following claim: “Tests have been carried out on over 30 humans and in each case the tumour masses disappeared.  Also, all pains and effects associated with cancer disappeared within 12 to 36 hours; the more chemotherapy and morphine the patient had taken, the longer the withdrawal period.”  Not only had he discovered the cancer cure that had eluded the thousands of PhDs and MDs working in cancer research around the world, but he also showed that chemotherapy was actually harmful.  Quite a claim!

And just where were these miraculously cured patients, and who had treated them?  Brewer refers to Dr. Hellfried Sartori (aka Prof. Abdul-Haqq Sartori) who had accomplished this incredible feat in the Washington D.C. area.  This is the same Dr. Sartori who in July of 2006 was arrested in Thailand for fraud and practicing medicine without a license.  He was charging desperate patients were up $50,000 for “cancer cures” which included cesium chloride injections.  The good doctor, who routinely promised that he could cure his patients of any disease, has a rather illustrious history.  Known as the notorious “Dr. Ozone” in the U.S. , he served five years in prison in Virginia and nine months in New York for defrauding patients with unapproved therapies such as cesium chloride injections, coffee enemas and ozone flushes.  Needless to say, there are no records of the patients whom, according to Brewer, Sartori cured of cancer.  Australian police are now looking into the deaths of six people who died after intravenous injections of cesium chloride at clinics following Sartori’s protocol.

Introducing ozone or hydrogen peroxide to raise cellular oxygen levels is a scientifically bankrupt idea, as is raising a cell’s pH with cesium chloride.  Of course, it is not the absurdity of the theory that rules out its effectiveness, it is the lack of evidence!  There are no controlled trials showing cancer being cured with ozone or cesium.  But there is evidence that cesium chloride can cause cardiac arrhythmia and death.  Granted, it is unlikely that this can happen from the oral doses being promoted by numerous alternative practitioners aimed at raising the body’s pH, but the idea that cesium chloride can neutralize acids in cells is sheer nonsense.

Yes, cesium is an “alkali” metal.  Dropping a piece of cesium metal into water does indeed produce an alkaline solution (and an explosion).  But cesium chloride is not the same as cesium metal, it is a neutral salt.  In any case, the blood’s pH cannot be altered by cesium chloride ingestion, or indeed with the ingestion of any food.  It is a marvelously buffered system, meaning that it resists any change in acidity.  It doesn’t matter what we eat or drink, our blood contains substances that can act as acids or bases to maintain our blood pH at 7.4.  The only body fluid that responds to diet in terms of pH is the urine.  Breads, cereals, eggs, fish, meat and poultry can make the urine more acidic while most, but not all, fruits and vegetables make the urine more alkaline.  A diet high in fruits and vegetables and low in meat can indeed reduce the risk of cancer, but this has absolutely nothing to do with changing the pH of cancer cells.  The idea of an “alkaline” diet to prevent or treat cancer may sound seductively simple, but in reality it is just simple minded.

Joe Schwarcz PhD

Serious Nonsense

cancer wellness program“We’ve had more people reverse cancer than any institute in the history of health care, so when McGill fails, or Toronto hospitals fail, they come to us. It can be stage 4 cancer and we reverse it.” You can imagine why that quote caught my eye. Both McGill and University of Toronto have world-class cancer treatment centers, but unfortunately, when it comes to stage 4 cancers, which are the most deadly, the chance of successful treatment is low. So, who is it that claims success where the latest evidence-based treatments fail? “Dr.” Brian Clement, who runs the Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida, apparently has the answers that have evaded mainstream researchers. What sort of doctor is this fellow? One who has some sort of accreditation as a “nutritionist” from a diploma mill where they apparently teach some, let us say, “interesting” science. I’m judging by the following rather fascinating outpouring of nonsense-bedecked drivel from the Hippocrates Health Institute.

“Based on modern biophysics and ancient Chinese medicine, color frequencies are applied to acupuncture points using a light pen and crystal rods. This promotes hormonal balance, detoxification, lymph flow and immune support while reducing headaches and sleeplessness. Working on cellular memory where the cause of disease resides, color puncture promotes healing from within.” And all you have to do is shell out $120 for a 50 minute treatment. All this of course is laughable, but when it comes to claims about curing cancer, the humour quickly vanishes with the realization that it is real people with real cancer who are being duped. And going by the following asinine promo, that is just what is happening.

“One of the major treatment goals of The Cancer Wellness Program at Hippocrates Health Institute is to strengthen the basic vitality, flow, and coherency of a person’s BioEnergy Field upstream to affect and change their downstream physical mass. The changes in a person’s vibrational frequency or bioenergy field, once stabilized, changes the electrical/chemical milieu in their body so that it is more difficult for their cancer or tumor mass with its own specific vibrational frequency to be sustained.”.

This is inane claptrap is far from the only type of cancer treatment Hippocrates offers. Intravenous vitamins and wheat grass implants are standard fare. Implanted where? Well, let’s just say in areas where the sun doesn’t shine. Clement maintains that “every disease known to man, plus premature aging, can be successfully dealt with on a diet of organic plant based foods.” Apparently not mental disease, given that Clement surely follows this diet. Patients are also told to give up meat and dairy, and are asked to swallow some rather bizarre ideas. Genetics don’t matter much, Clement says, and what doctors say about the BRCA gene predisposing to breast cancer is false. On his regimen, this mental wizard claims, tens of thousands of people have reversed the final stages of cancer. I would love to see the evidence for that. This charlatan is in Canada right now, giving talks, mostly to entice First Nations people to visit his Institute in Florida for treatment. Just like that given to the unfortunate 11-year-old Ontario girl who suffered from leukemia. That had a very sad outcome. Let’s just say she was not one of the tens of thousands of patients that Clement claims to have successfully treated.

Joe Schwarcz PhD

Cancer Charlatans

photodynamic therapyWhat makes people defend the indefensible? A prime example of this conundrum is the case of Antonella Carpenter, a 71 year old “alternative practitioner” who was convicted of conducting a fraudulent scheme to cure cancer in Tulsa, Oklahoma and is likely looking at spending the rest of her life in prison. She is not a physician but has some training in physics and claims that she can cure cancer by injecting a tumour with a saline solution of food colouring and walnut hull extract followed by heating the area with a laser. She calls her treatment “Light Induced Enhanced Selective Hyperthermia,” for which she claims 100% efficacy without any side effects. Any claim of 100% efficacy is a hallmark of quackery since no drug of any kind works in such a foolproof fashion. Even worse, she sometimes told patients they had been cured. As is often the case, quacks unearth some legitimate process and then twist it out of proportion to hatch a money-making scheme.

In this case, the legitimate process is “photodynamic therapy.” The treatment of cancer involves some process by which cancer cells are destroyed while normal cells suffer less damage. Unfortunately, it isn’t possible to avoid collateral damage completely and cancer treatment via radiation or drugs is always burdened with side effects. In photodynamic therapy the idea is to introduce a chemical, known as a photosensitizer, that when activated by light interacts with oxygen to convert it into a very reactive form known as “singlet oxygen” that then attacks any organic compound it encounters with the result being cell death. The photosensitizer can be introduced intravenously followed by the tumour being exposed to long wavelength light via optical fiber. Alternately, the photosensitizer can be injected directly into a tumour and then the area exposed to light. In either case singlet oxygen is produced only within the tumour, minimizing damage to normal tissue. The process is applicable to certain types of tumours and is certainly not a cure-all for cancer.

It is this therapy that has been mentally mangled by Antonella Carpenter, who according to investigators cheated cancer patients out of their money and gave them false hope. In spite of any evidence of her treatment having any efficacy, supporters have sprung to her side, claiming that she was wrongly convicted by a kangaroo court. Here are some of the phrases they are pumping out: “The greedy and vindictive genocidal maggots who control the Cancer Industry and have the FDA and courts in their back pocket”…. “the medical mafia is hard at work twisting the truth and vilifying Dr. Antonella Carpenter and any other non-Allopathic practitioners and natural or alternative treatments as quackery”…. “Dr. Carpenter was vindictively targeted by the Medical Mafia and their Gestapo goons at the FDA for successfully curing dozens of cancer patients.” No. The truth is that she was targeted for subjecting cancer patients to a treatment that had no chance of working and was claiming she had cured them. That is evil.

Joe Schwarcz PhD

Chemistry Lesson for The Food Babe…and everyone else #20

vani hariOrganic farmers are allowed to use a number of pesticides as long as they come from a natural source. Pyrethrum, an extract of chrysanthemum flowers, has long been used to control insects. The Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. classifies it as a likely human carcinogen. There you go then, a “carcinogen” used on organic produce! Does it matter? Of course not. Just because huge doses of a chemical, be it natural or synthetic, cause cancer in test animals, does not mean that trace amounts in humans do the same. Furthermore, pyrethrum biodegrades quickly and residues are trivial. But that is the case for most modern synthetic pesticides as well! And how about rotenone? This compound was discovered in the 1800s in the extracts of the root of the derris plant. Primitive tribes had learned that the ground root spread over water would paralyze fish which then floated to the surface. Rotenone is highly toxic to humans and causes Parkinson’s disease in rats. It has been used by organic farmers to control aphids, thrips, and other insects on fruit although it is being phased out. Residues probably pose little risk to humans, but synthetic pesticides with the same sort of toxicological profile have been vilified.

Organic farmers are also free to spray their crops with spores of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium which release an insecticidal protein. Yet, organic agriculture opposes the use of crops that are genetically modified to produce the same protein. Isn’t it curious that exposing the crop to the whole genome of the bacterium is perceived to be safe, whereas the production of one specific protein is looked at warily? The truth is that the protein is innocuous to humans, whether it comes from spores sprayed on an organic crop or from genetically modified crops. True, organic produce will have lower levels of pesticide residues but the significance of this is highly debatable.

A far bigger concern than pesticide residues is bacterial contamination, especially by potentially lethal E. coli 0157:H7.  The source is manure used as a fertilizer. Composted manure reduces the risk, but anytime manure is used, as of course is common for organic produce, there is concern. That’s why produce should be thoroughly washed, whether conventional or organic. Insect damage to crops not protected by pesticides often leads to an invasion by fungi. Some fungi, like fusarium, produce compounds which are highly toxic. Two varieties of organic corn meal once had to be withdrawn in Britain because of unacceptable levels of fumonisin, a natural toxin.

Are organic foods more nutritious? Maybe, marginally. When they are not protected by pesticides, crops produce their own chemical weapons. Some of these, various flavonoids, are antioxidants which may contribute to human health. Organic pears and peaches are richer in these compounds and organic tomatoes have more vitamin C and lycopene. But again, this has little practical relevance. When subjects consumed organic tomato puree every day for three weeks, their plasma levels of lycopene and vitamin C were no different from that seen in subjects consuming conventional puree. In any case, we simply are not going to feed 7 billion people organically.

Joe Schwarcz

Chemistry Lesson for the Food Babe #7

vani hariWe know that Ms. Food Babe’s scientific knowledge is negligible. Especially when it comes to understanding the difference between hazard and risk. This is important especially when it come to understanding the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s listing of chemicals as being carcinogenic. This list is based on hazard, not risk. Hazard can be defined as a potential source of harm or of some adverse health effect. Risk is the likelihood that exposure to a hazard causes harm or some adverse effect. If a substance is placed in IARC’s Group 1, it means that there is strong evidence that the substance can cause cancer, but it says nothing about how likely it is to do so. That likelihood depends on several factors including innate carcinogenicity, extent of exposure and personal liability. Ultraviolet light, a component of sunlight, is a good example to illustrate the difference between hazard and risk

Light can be thought of as being composed of packets of energy called photons. When a photon impacts a molecule of DNA it can damage it, triggering an irregular multiplication of cells, in other words, cancer. X-rays are also made up of photons, but these are more energetic than the photons of ultraviolet light so they are more likely to damage DNA. Although both sunlight and X-rays are in Group 1, X-rays are clearly more capable of triggering cancer than sunlight. But exposure matters. A single chest X-ray is not a problem but repeated baking in the sun is. More photons of lower energy can have a greater effect than fewer photons of greater energy. Then there is individual liability. A person with dark skin is less at risk for developing cancer than someone with pale skin even at the same ultraviolet light exposure.

Inhaled sand is also listed in Group 1. That’s because studies have shown that workers engaged in occupations that can result in inhaling sand show a significantly increased risk of cancer. But this doesn’t mean that going to the beach and frolicking in the sand is a risky business. Tobacco smoke is also in Group 1because there is no doubt that it causes lung cancer. In fact about ninety percent of all lung cancer cases can be attributed to smoking. Alcohol is also in this category because it is known to increase the risk of oral cancers as well as breast cancer, yet nobody worries about drinking a glass of wine. Listing processed meat in IARC’s Group 1 just says that like alcohol, like tobacco, like sunshine, and some 180 other chemicals, mixtures and exposure circumstances, it is capable of causing cancer. It does not mean that if you have a bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich you are putting yourself at risk. Vani Hari herself is a good example of a hazard. She has the potential to do harm. But if you ignore her mindless anti-GMO rants, she presents little risk.

Joe Schwarcz PhD


Murky Mercola

mercolaIf you haven’t heard of Joe Mercola, you have not been surfing the waves of health advice on the web. He is an osteopathic physician whose practice now is limited to offering mostly iffy medical advice on his website and selling a variety of questionable products. He claims his website “is not a tool to get me a bigger house and car, or to run for senate.”. He says he funds his site and therefore, is not handcuffed to any advertisers, silent partners or corporate parents and profit generated from the sale of the products he recommend goes right back into maintaining and building a better site, “ a site that, startling as it may be with all the greed-motivated hype out there in health care land, is truly for you.” Gee, that sounds like motherhood and apple pie. It seems though that not every penny earned goes back into the managing the website. Mercola lives high on the hog in a multi-million dollar estate in Chicago. That wouldn’t be objectionable if the edifice were built on gains from promoting sound science. But that is not the case.

Besides being critical of vaccination, calling microwave ovens dangerous, questioning whether the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS, opposing homogenized milk, claiming that sunscreens increase the risk of skin cancer, Mercola hypes and sells a variety of pseudoscience-laced products. Let’s start with “Dr. Mercola’s Earthing Universal Mat,” which is described thus: “When you walk barefoot on the Earth, there’s a transfer of free electrons from the Earth into your body that spread throughout your tissues. The effect is sufficient to maintain your body at the same negatively-charged electrical potential as the Earth. This simple process is called ‘grounding.’ If you constantly wear materials like rubber or ‘plastic’ shoes, which are both very effective insulators, you’ll be disconnected from the natural energy that flows from the Earth.” Well, in my view, the only thing you will be disconnected from is science. This business of improving health by walking barefoot or by using Mercola’s Earthing Mat is nonsense. But Mercola tells us that his mat “is a great way to complement any outside ‘barefooting’ you might be able to fit into your busy schedule. It’s a quick and easy way for you to get started grounding whether at home, at the office, or almost anywhere you go.” I prefer to get my grounding from science not fairy tales.

Dr. Mercola also sells books such as “Dark Deception” in which he describes how we need sun exposure for health. But he would prefer to expose you to the tanning beds he sells, the same ones health experts agree are dangerous and increase the risk of skin cancer. There is also Dr. Mercola’s “organic deodorant” with “baking soda as the “active ingredient.” Except that it isn’t very active. There are also supplements galore. Like “breast health formula,” “mushroom complex” and “silver solution,” none of is a solution to anything. His bamboo toilet paper I’m sure does as good a job as any other, but the claim that it is better because it is free of toxic BPA can be safely flushed away.

Dr. Joe Schwarcz

« Older Entries
Blog authors are solely responsible for the content of the blogs listed in the directory. Neither the content of these blogs, nor the links to other web sites, are screened, approved, reviewed or endorsed by McGill University. The text and other material on these blogs are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of McGill.