Johns Hopkins: cancer is primarily ‘bad luck’

Two scientists at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Dr. Bert Vogelstein, the Clayton Professor of Oncology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and ‘bio-mathematician’ and assistant Professor, Cristian Tomasetti, Ph.D. published a study on January 2nd in the journal Science, which concluded that two-thirds of adult cancer incidence across tissues can be explained primarily by ‘bad luck’.

The scientists created a mathematical model by searching the scientific literature for information on the cumulative number of divisions of stem cells among 31 tissue types during an average individual’s lifetime. They then charted the number of stem cell divisions in these tissues and plotted them against the incidence of cancer. For example, in colon tissue there are 4 times more cell divisions than occur in the small intestine, and cancer is more prevalent in the former. QED.

“It was well-known that cancer arises when tissue specific stem cells make random mistakes, or mutations during cell replication”, said Vogelstein.

Let’s get real

1. Firstly, neither prostate nor breast cancer were covered in the research since the researchers could not obtain reliable data on stem cell divisions. So that would rule out almost one third of all cancers in the UK. And we are always being told by the UK ‘Brand leader’ Cancer Research, that these are largely hormonally driven, with factors such as oestrogen, lack of exercise and obesity playing a big part. If the new research is correct, and it were to apply to breast and prostate cancers as well, how has CRUK made such a big error? Just bad luck, perhaps?

2. Secondly, I will hazard a guess that the number of stem cell divisions in a tissue occurs in line with the number of overall cell divisions. And what the scientists actually showed was that there was a link between more cell divisions in a tissue and an increased risk of cancer. Hardly, new thinking really.

3. But if it is all about stem cells do the conclusions mean that someone in New York has many more stem cell divisions in their lungs than someone in China, or Kenya, where cancer incidence is considerably lower? The UK population must have 4 times the stem cell division of Thais; with almost exactly the same population we get four times the number of cancers they do. Why would that be?? Would the increased rate of stem cell division in New York or London not constitute a cause? Or are Thais just four times luckier than Londoners?

4. Next, having shown a link between cell division volumes and cancer volumes, our plucky duo made a mental jump: “It was well-known that cancer arises when tissue specific stem cells make random mistakes, or mutations during cell replication”, Well known to whom? In 2012 scientists were still arguing whether there was such a thing as a cancer stem cell.

And the idea that cancer is caused by mutations to the core DNA is quaintly old fashioned. Indeed the modern theory of cancer (being confirmed by scientists week in, week out) is that not much happens to the core DNA (and when it does the immune system easily spots it as rogue). Instead, chemicals like homocysteine build up in the blood stream and cause more methylation around the DNA coil. This holds histones in place, which in turn hold the integrity and shape of the DNA in the nucleus.

When the histones cover a gene responsible for, say, controlled cellular division, it cannot send out its messages, it is silenced, and the cell starts dividing randomly. It is important to note that this methylation and acetylation is believed to be reversible by literally thousands of scientists currently working for drugs companies and University Medical Schools. The science is called Epigenetics (Epi=around, the gene). Drugs companies believe they can affect the methylation and acetylation directly; or indirectly via the enzymes that cause it.

Other scientists believe that there are a host of natural compounds (from sulphoraphanes to carotenoids) that can do this, as can exercise hormones. Indeed, Epigeneticists argue that there are clearly 4 causes of DNA blockages – environmental toxins, stress, poor diet and hormones such as oestrogen.

So, are these epigenetic scientists all wrong?

Where hypotheses and statistics meet

A statistician is someone who will tell you that it’s better to have a watch that is broken (it is right twice a day), than one that loses 7 minutes a day (it is right once every thirteen days).

I have decided to look at road accidents in Britain (London and Manchester were excluded because there were no reliable statistics). Now, it is widely accepted that council road administrators allow too many non-UK-qualified lorry drivers to drive on the roads. And sure enough, we have found that the number of road deaths is proportional to the increases in foreign lorries on our roads. It doesn’t fit exactly (but to about an 80% level) and it differs by the 31 regions we looked at. So if you die in a road accident it has little to do with your skills as a driver, or how fast you were going, or the weather conditions. The number of foreign lorry drivers being allowed on our roads by a lack of legislation is behind it. Just bad luck really.

What is odd though is that this conclusion doesn’t hold true in Africa or China. So I’ll leave that out of my model.


So, thanks to Johns Hopkins, science has a new bed fellow: Bad luck. It’s the devil’s work. No need to feel guilty about your gluttony and sloth – just ‘eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow ye may die’.

No need for CRUK or the Government to feel guilty about failing to do anything serious in the way of Cancer Prevention Programmes in the community. You can’t legislate for bad luck. It would be pointless spending billions of pounds telling people to eat healthily, exercise and give up smoking if cancer occurs ‘for no particular reason other than randomness’ (according to Tomasetti).

If 65% of cancers are just bad luck, and we add on the 20% known to be caused by parasites and viruses (according to the WHO), then we certainly aren’t left with much that is to do with our sloth and gluttony. ‘50% of cancers are your own fault’ said CRUK 5 years ago. ‘30-50% of cancers are due to your poor diets’ said the WHO. ‘At least half of all cancers are preventable’. Oh no they’re not says a mathematical model (that left two of the biggest out).

Food companies that sell junk, have no case to answer. Lucky for them. What of the legal cases in the USA where people sue cigarette companies or mobile phone companies for not warning them that their products cause cancer? Presumably your bad luck is now lucky for these companies.

At CANCERactive we were helping a patient with oesophageal cancer. She had had bad acid reflux for ten years and been on a drug the whole time. A trip to the manufacturer’s website said that ‘on no account should the drug be prescribed for more than six months’. The woman asked her doctor what he thought caused her cancer. ‘Just bad luck’ was his reply. Johns Hopkins have vindicated him. His mis-prescription of the drug was irrelevant.

But there’s a get out clause in the model: “We found that the types of cancer that had a higher risk than predicted by the number of cell divisions, were precisely the one’s you’d expect” (lung cancer – linked to smoking; skin cancer – linked to sun exposure). So, other factors do cause deviation from their model. Lucky, I spotted that.

Junk science

The new science of ‘Bad luck’ is a dangerous concept. It removes the need for people to exert any self-control. The implication is that you can make little difference to prevent your cancer (and thus can make little difference to prevent it returning – so it is pointless doing anything to help treat your condition). Self-empowerment for patients goes out of the window. You might as well stay fat, not exercise, carry on smoking and just place your total faith in your good doctor’s hands. And luck.

Except, isn’t it lucky for us that The American Cancer Society have produced a 2012 report saying that since 2006 there has been an ‘explosion’ in research, and ‘overwhelming’ evidence that good diet, weight control and exercise can increase survival and even prevent a cancer returning.

Except, isn’t it lucky for us that the Karolinska Institute has produced straight line graphs on the links between cows’ dairy consumption and prostate, breast and ovarian cancers; or that Bristol University produced a meta-study on 52 research reports concluding that people who exercised regularly developed less cancers, and that those with cancer who exercised regularly, survived longer.

Watch out for the follow up study: ‘It is just bad luck that the chemotherapy didn’t work for you’. (Well it wouldn’t anyway because there is no drug available today that tackles cancer stem cells.)

What bad luck.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Prevent Alzheimer’s for 10 pence a day. It’s just 6 sents.

In a recent survey in Britain, the fear of developing Alzheimer’s overtook the fear of developing cancer for the first time. This increased fear is a direct consequence of many more stories in the media, and even movies about Alzheimer’s. Most people also know someone who has, or has died from, Alzheimer’s and know it’s not a pretty sight. It’s extremely worrying, in fact. We are living longer and the odds of developing dementia in your 80s, most of which is Alzheimer’s anyway, are one in five. (Dementia is diagnosed on the basis of symptoms – losing your memory etc; Alzheimer’s is diagnosed with a brain scan showing brain shrinkage in certain key areas.)

With an ever-ageing population, at least in the Western world, one in five is a lot of people. Already the cost of looking after people with Alzheimer’s, estimated at £23 billion and growing, is more than the cost of all cancer and heart disease combined. These levels of ever increasing healthcare costs are giving health regulators and economists sleepless nights.

The 10p-a-day vitamin supplement that tackles dementia

With these kind of costs and massive public concern there’s potentially big bucks to be made if you could come up with a drug that prevents Alzheimer’s. It already exists – except it’s not a drug. It’s a combination of inexpensive B vitamins that might cost you 10p a day.

The discovery, made by Professor David Smith and his team at Oxford University is that raised blood levels of homocysteine can predict Alzheimer’s risk, can cause the damage in the brain and, most importantly, can be lowered with high doses of B vitamins, well beyond the RDA, simultaneously stopping further memory loss or accelerated brain shrinkage, precisely in that area of the brain that is the hallmark of Alzheimer’s. It’s a major discovery but there’s no money in this for the big guys.

Innocently, you might think that health officials would be swinging from the rooftops to get any genuine prevention plan into action. The cost savings would be immense. I asked Professor David Smith what needs to be done. He replied, “Although we proved that those people with raised homocysteine levels above 10 (which is about three quarters of all people over age 70) suffering from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) can have substantially reduced brain shrinkage and memory loss by taking B vitamins, the next step needed is a trial of 1,000 people with MCI to see if B vitamins prevent the conversion to dementia over a two-year period. Can AD be beaten? I am optimistic.”

Why are we wasting billions?

But he can’t get the money.

Despite David Cameron, the UK prime minister, doubling spend on Alzheimer’s research, neither the UK Medical Research Council nor the US National Institutes for health will put up the money to prove, once and for all, this incredibly important discovery. Instead, it’s more money for drugs.

The whole political and healthcare system is so tied up with the pharmaceutical industry that any talk about an approach that threatens the massive potential drug market is going to be actively suppressed. It’s the same old story. They want a patentable, profitable drug.

There’s just one problem. And it is a major problem: None of the drug trials has worked. Vast sums of money have been wasted.

In 2010 there was an article in the Lancet headed ‘Why are drug trials in Alzheimer’s disease failing?’ David Smith wrote in saying “You suggest several reasons why trials in Alzheimer’s disease are failing but you do not consider an obvious one: That the hypothesis on which most Alzheimer’s trials are based might not be valid. If a scientist does several experiments on the basis of a hypothesis and they all fail, he will abandon the hypothesis. Why are we so reluctant to do this in medicine?’

So, how much is enough, when it comes to B vitamins

Despite over 70 studies all confirming the homocysteine memory loss connection, it is extraordinary (or to be expected depending how you look at it) how much this breakthrough is being ignored. See the evidence [link to] The solution is as simple as increasing your intake of B vitamins.

But be clear: We are not talking about a ‘well balanced diet’ level of B vitamins. The levels of B vitamins that have been proven to both lower homocysteine and stop this accelerated brain shrinkage and memory loss are up to a hundred times higher that the basic RDAs. You need 20mg of B6 (the RDA is 2mg), 800mcg of folic acid (the RDA is 200mcg) and 500mcg of B12 (the RDA is 1mcg/2.4mcg in the US). The reason for the need for these high amounts, especially for B12 is that the older you get the less well you absorb it from your foods.

Here are a few of the factors known to increase your need for B vitamins and/or to raise dangerous homocysteine levels:

• Coffee

• Lack of exercise

• Lack of vegetables

• Lack of fish and eggs

• Diabetes drugs (metformin)

• Antacid drugs (PPIs)

• Stress

• Smoking

Of course, the majority of people over 50 will tick at least half these boxes. This is why it is essential to supplement more B vitamins as you get older, as well as improving your diet and lifestyle.

Early screening is essential

In an enlightened health care system we would be testing everyone over 50 for early signs of cognitive decline, and if positive, checking for raised homocysteine. If that was above 10mcmol/l, which is the level above which there is clear evidence of accelerated brain shrinkage, we would be prescribing high dose B vitamins.

How long, in reality, will it take for this to happen?

If it takes 10 years, with 18,000 people in the UK being diagnosed with dementia every year, that’s another 180,000 people who could have been helped, but weren’t.

So our charity, the Food for the Brain Foundation, decided to build a free on-line Cognitive Function Test, with the guidance and tests developed by two of the world’s leading experts in cognitive function testing. To validate it we had a group of people perform the accepted paper and pencil tests used to diagnose cognitive impairment, as well as our own on-line Cognitive Function Test. The results were identical.

The Cognitive Function Test went live in the spring of 2011 and, largely thanks to a front page in the Daily Mail, over 150,000 people have now taken this simple test. It is available at If you don’t score so well you get a letter to take to your GP recommending that they investigate further and test your homocysteine level.

I should point out that all this work – running a free Cognitive Function Test, promoting valid steps to take to help prevent Alzheimer’s, running a website that close to a million people visit every year – costs money and we get absolutely no help from government agencies who continually talk about the urgent need for ‘prevention’.

We also need to further research and improve the Cognitive Function Test.  David Smith and other homocysteine researchers struggle to get money to do their vital, independent research,.

If you would like to know more about what you can do right now to prevent Alzheimer’s, you could also read my book The Alzheimer’s Prevention Plan [link to In a nutshell there are four main drivers of brain damage – a lack of homocysteine lowering B vitamins, not enough omega 3 fats, too much sugar and carbs, a lack of antioxidants. Correcting these is what’s going to make a real difference. Not failed drugs.

, , , , , , , ,