It’s true! After hearing a bit Bill Mahr did on his show discussing the over-medication of our population, I checked out the study and it is sound and true. Exercise 30 - 50minutes 3 times a week significantly reduces depression and does not contribute to relapses when consistent! It’s that simple. Here’s the article for you to read and absorb:

Study: Exercise Has Long-Lasting Effect on Depression

After demonstrating that 30 minutes of brisk exercise three times a week is just as effective as drug therapy in relieving the symptoms of major depression in the short term, medical center researchers have now shown that continued exercise greatly reduces the chances of the depression returning. Last year, the Duke researchers reported on their study of 156 older patients diagnosed with major depression which, to their surprise, found that after 16 weeks, patients who exercised showed statistically significant and comparable improvement relative to those who took anti-depression medication, or those who took the medication and exercised. The new study, which followed the same participants for an additional six months, found that patients who continued to exercise after completing the initial trial were much less likely to see their depression return than the other patients. Only 8 percent of patients in the exercise group had their depression return, while 38 percent of the drug-only group and 31 percent of the exercise-plus-drug group relapsed. “The important conclusion is that the effectiveness of exercise seems to persist over time, and that patients who respond well to exercise and maintain their exercise have a much smaller risk of relapsing,”said lead researcher, Duke psychologist James Blumenthal, who published the results of his team’s study in the October issue of the journal Psychosomatic Medicine.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The researchers are now using a new $3 million NIH grant to better understand the subtle factors that may explain the positive effects of exercise in a new trial that begins enrolling patients this month. “We found that there was an inverse relationship between exercise and the risk of relapsing - the more one exercised, the less likely one would see their depressive symptoms return,” Blumenthal explained. “For each 50-minute increment of exercise, there was an accompanying 50 percent reduction in relapse risk. “ Findings from these studies indicate that a modest exercise program is an effective and robust treatment for patients with major depression,” he continued. “And if these motivated patients continue with their exercise, they have a much better chance of not seeing their depression return.” Researchers were surprised that the group of patients who took the medication and exercised did not respond as well as those who only exercised. “We had assumed that exercise and medication together would have had an additive effect, but this turned out not to be the case,”Blumenthal said. “While we don’t know the reasons for this, some of the participants were disappointed when they found out they were randomized to the exercise and medication group. To some extent, this ‘anti-medication’ sentiment may have played a role by making patients less excited or enthused about their combined exercise and medication program.” He suggested that exercise may be beneficial because patients are actually taking an active role in trying to get better. “Simply taking a pill is very passive,” he said. “Patients who exercised may have felt a greater sense of mastery over their condition and gained a greater sense of accomplishment. They may have felt more self-confident and competent because they were able to do it themselves, and attributed their improvement to their ability to exercise.” Once patients start feeling better, they tend to exercise more, which makes them feel even better, Blumenthal said. The greatest risk for these patients, since they are older, would be to suffer an injury or illness that would interrupt their exercise routine, he added. While the researchers enrolled middle-aged and elderly people in their study, Blumenthal said it is logical to assume that the results would hold true for the general population, since older people tend to have additional medical problems or infirmities that might make regular exercise more difficult than for younger patients.

Researchers used the anti-depressant sertraline (trade name Zoloft), which is a member of a class of commonly used anti-depressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). Blumenthal cautioned that the study did not include patients who were acutely suicidal or had what is termed psychotic depression. Also, since patients were recruited by advertisements, these patients were motivated to get better and interested in exercise. The research team included, from Duke, Michael Babyak, Steve Herman, Parinda Khatri, Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, Kathleen Moore, Teri Baldewicz and Dr. Ranga Krishnan. Edward Craighead, from the University of Colorado at Boulder also participated.

For more information, contact: Richard Merritt | (919) 660-1309 | merri006@mc.duke.edu

Study reported September 22, 2000
© 2007 Office of News & Communications
615 Chapel Drive, Box 90563, Durham, NC 27708-0563
(919) 684-2823; After-hours phone (for reporters on deadline): (919) 812-6603

Our heredity, or our environment? That is a huge question that many are not addressing in the information era of prevention through education.

I’ve noticed on many commonly-seen bits on yahoo.com, and other “health tip” readings on the internet, for protecting yourself from getting beast cancer, there’s a huge chunk of scientific field and clinical data that is not being addressed, so I wanted to illuminate it a bit.

Many articles focus upon one thing – the heredity factor, as was posted today on yahoo (see “A Healthy Approach” below), but I would also like to be very clear that most research is now showing that less than 5% of cancer is due to heredity factors, most all others are environmental toxins. As a result of knowing this in my clinical studies, I have copied some great references of online discussions with doctors from a few different sources, so you can learn a bit more, and truly join the leagues of women who are proactively trying to remain cancer free. This subject hits close to home for me, as my Mom is a breast cancer survivor.… but it wasn’t easy. And by the way, NO one in our family had it before her… so here’s a little bit more information to digest and use to your advantage!

Enjoy-
Dr. Grace

A Healthy Approach
High Risk of Breast Cancer: 4 Factors
Posted by Lucy Danziger, SELF Editor-in-Chief on Mon, Oct 08, 2007, 11:45 am PDT
To get a quick snapshot of your own risk, based on your family history, Therese M. Bevers, M.D., medical director of the Cancer Prevention Center at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, suggests you ask yourself the four following questions:
1. Do you have at least two blood relatives who were diagnosed with breast cancer before menopause?

4. Is your family of Ashkenazi Jewish descent?
If you answered yes to 1, 2 or 3, or to 4 along with any other question, your family history of breast cancer implies a genetic predisposition, says Dr. Bevers.
Talk with your doctor about whether you should consider seeing a genetic counselor, who can give you a much more complete assessment of your risk. (You can also find a genetic counselor yourself at the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Other Factors that are equally, or more important than heredity:

Read the entire interview from National Radio’s 1997 “The Health Report” at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s205.htm

The following is an interview with Professor Mary Wolff of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. She has been researching the pesticide vs. breast cancer debate for years, and has some very interesting things to report:

Mary Wolff: That’s right, and because we know that oestrogen is strongly related to breast cancer risk, that connection caused us to want to look further.
Norman Swan: You did what’s called a case control study. You compared women with breast cancer with women who didn’t, and looked at various factors including their exposure to pesticides.
Mary Wolff: That’s right. My collaborators at NYU Paolo Toniolo had a group of 14,000 women on whom he had drawn blood at one time point, and then followed them until they got cancer, and then compared them to other women in a cohort who don’t have cancer.
Norman Swan: And what were the findings?
Mary Wolff: In the initial study we did, we found that women with the highest 10% of DDT levels had about a fourfold increased risk of breast cancer, over women with the lowest 10% of DDT levels.
Norman Swan: Did you measure other synthetic chemicals as well?
Mary Wolff: We did. In that study we also looked at PCBs and we did not see a significant effect.
Norman Swan: Have other people tried to replicate them - what have they found?
Mary Wolff: There are more than 30 studies worldwide going on to look at the issue of pesticides and breast cancer, and some of them have been positive and some of them have been negative. Not all of the big studies have yet been published however.
Norman Swan: There is a significant gap in our knowledge in terms of risk factors for breast cancer. What’s the extent of our ignorance?
Mary Wolff: Well that again is something that has really propelled in a recent interest in looking at environmental exposures in breast cancer. That is that at most studies that try to explain breast cancer risk, come up with about 40% or 45% of risk, and most people think it’s lower than that and it’s like 30%. Most women who get breast cancer do not have any of the major risk factors. The major risk factors for breast cancer are age, country of birth, and family history. We also know that reproductive history - the time at which you get your first menstrual period and the time at which you have your first child, and the age of menopause, are important. And those are the big risk factors. All those together don’t explain all breast cancer risk, and most women who get breast cancer have none of those risks.
Norman Swan: What’s your guess as to the attribution of environmental factors?
Mary Wolff: My guess is that in some certain sub-groups of women who are susceptible or who were exposed at a very sensitive period of breast development, may have increased risk due to pesticides or to other environmental factors.

Here is a GREAT list of many factors from CBS.com interview with Dr. Debbie Saslow of The American Cancer Society.
Full story can be read at: http://www.cbs.com/cbs_cares/breast_cancer/

WHAT ARE THE RISK FACTORS FOR BREAST CANCER?
The American Cancer Society estimates that 75 % of breast cancer cases occur in women with no known risk factors, other than sex and age. However, the following factors increase your risk:

Over-use of antibiotics: More studies need to be conducted to determine the reason why excessive antibiotic use may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. One theory, provided on the National Cancer Institute’s website, is that antibiotics affect a body’s immune function. It needs to be emphasized that antibiotics are an important weapon to combat bacterial infections, but gratuitous or excessive use may increase breast cancer risk as well as making a person potentially less responsive to antibiotic treatments in the future.

I’d rather be one more…

One more woman educated, rather than vaccinated for no reason.

Over the last 2 years I have been monitoring the progress of the press releases and literature involving cervical cancer, and the advent of the first “cancer vaccine.” While reading one of my favorite website’s daily announcements for current scientific research, www.sciencedaily.com, I came across a study that declared that scientists had narrowed down the genetics of a virus called human papillomavirus (HPV), and were designing a vaccine for it, in order to contain it better after transmission. Low and behold, 6 months after that, a pharmaceutical company announced that it was on track for creating the first cancer vaccine. Not but 3 months after that, we see commercials all over the airwaves telling us to tell our daughters that we want them to “be one less” – meaning, one less case affected by the potential of developing cervical cancer.

While I was impressed with the marvels of scientific progress in locating and deciphering the various strains of HPV, and how they affect the body, I was also equally unimpressed by the “vaccine approach” that is being taken to do something about the infection.

Let me clarify a few things:
1. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and infection.
2. HPV can be completely avoided and reduction of infection is cheaply, effectively, and easily achieved through condom use and microbicides, decreased exposure to multiple sexual partners, and screening for, and treatment and removal of new infections as soon as possible, so they do not have the opportunity to become cervical cancer (Center for Disease Control 2006 report).
3. Proper education and monitoring of your child’s sexual activity and safe sex practices is the only side-effect free, safe and responsible way in which to “be one less.”

I found it very interesting that on the Gardasil website, www.gardasil.com, there was a lot of great information about what HPV is, but a conscious exclusion of how to prevent it through safe sex and proper education. For example, the following is directly from the site, and is also similar data extracted directly from the Center for Disease Control (CDC):

HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and HPV Types 6 and 11 cause 90% of genital warts cases.

And from their FAQ section:

Q: How do people get HPV? A: HPV affects both women and men.
• Anyone who has any kind of sexual activity involving genital contact with an infected person can get HPV—intercourse isn’t necessary.
• Many people who have HPV may not show any signs or symptoms, so they can pass the virus on without even knowing it.
HPV is easily transmitted. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20 million people in the United States already had HPV in 2005. HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18 account for the majority of HPV-related clinical diseases.
3. Q: What is cervical cancer? A: Cervical cancer is cancer of the cervix (the lower part of the uterus that connects to the vagina). Cervical cancer is caused by certain types of HPV. When a female becomes infected with certain types of HPV and the virus doesn’t go away on its own, abnormal cells can develop in the lining of the cervix. If not discovered early and treated, these abnormal cells can become cervical precancers and then cancer.
4. Q: What are genital warts? A: Genital warts are flesh-colored growths that appear in or around the genital area. The types of HPV that cause genital warts are different from the types of that can cause cervical cancer. About 2 out of 3 people who have sexual contact with a person who has genital warts will get them. Even after treatment, there is a chance that the genital warts could come back if HPV is still present. In fact, 25% of cases come back within 3 months.

Now, the next paragraph goes directly into describing the vaccine. There is no information on non-invasive prevention and effective techniques that are simply a reflection of access to knowledge – education and application of safe sex practices and proper screening. There CERTAINLY is no information about mercury preservatives in our vaccines, like information about the following from www.thimersol.com:

Thimerosal, also and formerly known as Thiomersal, is a compound that most often contains approximately 49% mercury (by weight) and is used as an antiseptic and antifungal agent, commonly in for human vaccines, pet vaccines and in other animal vaccines.
Thimerosal was originally developed and marketed under the trade name Merthiolate before 1930 by Eli Lilly and Company. It has been and is still used today as a preservative in human vaccines, pet vaccines and in other animal vaccines, immune globulin preparations, certain skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and some nasal products, as well as tattoo inks.
Thimerosal was supposed to have been removed from or drastically reduced as a component in all vaccines that are commonly in use for children six (6) years of age and younger, with the exception of ‘inactivated influenza’ vaccines. A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine, which still contains trace amounts of Thimerosal, is still marketed for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines for children seven (7) years of age and older and vaccines containing the Mercury compounds as Thimerosal are in common availability also for adults.

So, be informed, really look at who is being benefited from new treatment protocols with little-to-no research and data supporting safety, and certainly be aware of the side effects that they already DO know exist – it’ll only get worse with time (ref.: Birth Control Pill blog entry, June 2007). As I said before, I’d rather be one less, too – but one less being a woman getting a pharmaceutically pushed treatment for a very preventable problem. Prevention through awareness and education is definitely my choice.