|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Article Navigation
|
Why Child Bearing Is Healthyby: Dr Randy Wysong From a purely biological perspective, bearing children can be considered the most important reason for a woman’s existence. For that matter, the same could be said about men, since both sexes are, in effect, disposable packages of genetic material. We die, but our genes continue on immortally. With increasing population pressure and modern independent lifestyles (unlike the family farm where children were almost a necessity), procreation has become an option that is increasingly declined or at least significantly restricted. But with these choices women take themselves out of a natural biological role. Additionally, treating the breast as an ornament rather than a feeding organ – by opting for synthetic formulas – also removes women from a natural biological function. When these choices are coupled with the use of contraceptive hormones, hormone replacement therapy, an increasing load of estrogenic pollutants in the environment and food, and a diet that has veered significantly from its natural design, the formula for hormonal pandemonium, metabolic dysfunction, and disease is in place. The result is early menses in children, infertility, abnormal and erratic menstrual cycles, cervical dysplasia, fibroids, endometrial cancer, breast cancer, premenstrual syndrome, dramatic mood swings and depression, osteoporosis, and other symptoms of abnormal menopause: hot flashes, psychological problems, decreased libido, and thinning of the vaginal wall. This is a difficult problem with no easy solution. If women would have as many children as they are capable of, nurse them for years as they are designed to, eat natural foods, and live in a more pristine environment, most of these modern health problems would disappear. If money flowed out of our tap we would not have economic problems either, right? The desire to limit families may soon not even be an option. We either curtail population growth or we will saw through the branch we all sit on. Population is the engine that ultimately drives all environmental woes. We live on a finite planet with finite resources, but we have an infinite ability to breed. We either live within the limits of Earth’s sustainable resources or we will destroy ourselves. Having children may be a natural and healthy process, but can be a deadly game for sustainable life on Earth. So we have a conundrum. Women need to fulfill their biological reproductive role to achieve metabolic balance and health, but if they do so unlimited, the health of life on Earth is jeopardized. In an attempt to solve this dilemma, women have turned to the quick fix of pharmaceutical synthetic hormones. Hormones that control conception, hormones that control abnormal menstrual cycles, and hormones that fix menopause. It is an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem. The saying, “Don’t mess with Mother Nature” is particularly applicable when dosing the body with hormones. Since the 1940’s when estrogen therapy became popular, hundreds of thousands of women have succumbed to cancer. For example, a woman is nearly 13 times more likely to get endometrial cancer, and at nearly a 30% increased risk of breast cancer when she takes estrogen. Recently, researchers have identified the two top preventable breast cancer risks: oral birth control pills and estrogen replacement therapy. For those who justify the use of estrogen for the benefits of decreased risk of osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease, consider that proper exercise, diet and lifestyle choices can have the same beneficial effect without the potential consequence of cancer. How have women specifically put themselves outside of their natural context to make themselves more susceptible to cancers? The average mom gives birth to about two infants. Although this is an intelligent number from the standpoint of population control, it is unnatural in that by not continuing to have pregnancies and to nurse (which stops ovulations) she will ovulate an incredible 438 times during her lifetime. On the other hand, a woman in the primitive natural setting who may not even know what causes pregnancy or how to prevent it even if they wanted to, would have started menstruating and ovulating at age twelve and would have delivered nine babies and breast-fed them over the course of her reproductive career. Breast-feeding can continue for children in a totally natural setting for up to five or more years of age. The combination of pregnancy along with breast-feeding in the premodern setting would have decreased the number of ovulations that a primitive mother would have had to about nine. This means that today women cycle through their menstrual periods an abnormal number of times, subjecting their bodies to surges of estrogen 50 times greater than our primitive ancestors living in a natural setting. Many cancers of women are sensitive to high levels of female hormones. For example, breast cancer is sensitive to estrogen. In dogs, simply removing the ovaries can often prevent or halt the progress of mammary cancer. Tamoxifen in humans is used to block estrogen activity within the mammary glands and thus is believed to exert its protective effect in this way. (This pharmaceutical agent can, however, increase the risk of uterine cancer to about the same degree that the risk of breast cancer is reduced!) The resting periods of lower estrogen levels that women experienced in the premodern setting served a protective effect to spare organs and tissues from cancer. Women who nurse for a total period of time of even as little as two years are known to have a decreased incidence of mammary cancer. This excess ovulation hypothesis is the likely explanation for the tragic phenomenon of modern female cancers. When humans decide to flout and repudiate nature by interfering with natural biological design, disease will always be the consequence. If the problem is a departure from nature, then the solution is a return to it. Here are some options: 1. Refer to the Wysong Optimal Health Program for guidelines on life choices that can enhance overall health and thus hormonal health (http://www.wysong.net/PDFs/ohp.pdf). 2. Emphasize fresh raw foods in the diet and avoid processed foods as much as possible. 3. Eliminate hydrogenated oils and refined sugars. Hydrogenated oils displace healthful dietary fats and have been shown to be carcinogenic, and sugars can stimulate a rise in estrogens. 4. Try to use organic foods as much as possible and avoid synthetic materials in cosmetics, at home and in the workplace to help reduce exposure to environmental estrogens. 5. Do not attempt “low fat” or “low cholesterol” fad diets that often create dependence upon processed carbohydrates and seriously reduce important natural dietary fats and essential fatty acids. 6. Increase the consumption of natural vegetable foods containing phytoestrogens which tend to counteract estrogens. 7. Avoid hormone medications if at all possible. 8. Explore natural birth control measures. 9. Nurse your babies for as long as you can. Modern life presents many choices, freedoms and rights. Tinkering with child bearing, however, is a choice that is not without consequences. Women need to be aware and take the steps necessary to make sure the choices they make do not also bring with them the increased risk of serious modern diseases. Reference: Zeneca Pharaceuticals. Tamoxifen Patient Insert. Zeneca, Inc. Wilmington, DE. 1998. Latest Cancer News:FDA panel votes against Xgeva for prostate cancer A panel of cancer experts voted against a new use for Amgen's Xgeva in prostate cancer on Wednesday, saying the drug's ability to slow the spread of the disease did not translate into meaningful benefits for patients Breast cancer kills older women more often NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Breast cancer is often considered more deadly among younger women, but a new study shows older women are actually more likely to die of the disease. Researchers found that among women who had been diagnosed with a certain type of breast cancer, those over 75 years old were 63 percent more likely to die of the cancer than women younger than 65. "I suspect it's ... Breast cancer charity chases Komen defectors As a prominent breast cancer researcher and activist, Susan Love is no stranger to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Love runs a breast cancer research foundation that bears her name, and she organized the Army of Women , more than 360,000 women to whom breast cancer researchers can blast out requests for subjects. But the Komen Foundation is so entrenched in the world of breast cancer fundraising ... A Better Way to Spend Breast Cancer Funds? We must move breast cancer advocacy to the next level, beyond screening for cancers that are already there, even beyond the cure, to finding the cause, writes Dr. Susan Love. Cancer-hit cricketer Yuvraj vows to return stronger India's cancer-stricken World Cup hero Yuvraj Singh has vowed to return "stronger than ever" to competitive cricket, saying he was responding well to treatment in the United States. Doxil/Caelyx (Ovarian Cancer) - Analysis and Forecasts to 2020 NEW YORK, Feb. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue: Doxil/Caelyx (Ovarian Cancer) - Analysis and Forecasts to 2020 http://www.reportlinker.com/p0657184/Doxil/Caelyx-Ovarian-Cancer---Analysis-and-Forecasts-to-2020.html#utm_source=prnewswire&utm_medium=pr&utm_campaign=PathologyDoxil/Caelyx ... Triple Analysis: Lung Cancer, Angiogenesis and Cancer Vaccines NEW YORK, Feb. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue: Triple Analysis: Lung Cancer, Angiogenesis and Cancer Vaccines http://www.reportlinker.com/p0284988/Triple-Analysis-Lung-Cancer-Angiogenesis-and-Cancer-Vaccines.html#utm_source=prnewswire&utm_medium=pr&utm_campaign=Drug_and_MedicationThis ... Marian Regional Medical Center Receives CEO Cancer Gold Standard Accreditation The CEO Roundtable on Cancer recently accredited Marian Regional Medical Center with the CEO Cancer Gold Standard? recognizing the hospital?s efforts to reduce the risk of cancer f Breast Cancer Drug May Weaken Bones, Study Finds TUESDAY, Feb. 7 (HealthDay News) -- A drug used to prevent breast cancer in women at high risk for the disease appears to cause bone loss in some postmenopausal women, a new study finds. Marc Garnick Answers 6 Key Questions about Prostate Cancer Marc Garnick Answers 6 Key Questions about Prostate Cancer Breast cancer kills older women more often - Fox News
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2006 CancerAdvice.org