478 Autism [2 July 2018]

William J. Walsh devotes Chapter 7 of his book Nutrient Power – Heal Your Biochemistry and Heal Your Brain to autism.

Two factors point to an epigenetic cause of autism. There is a definite genetic factor since the probability of a second twin having autism if the first one does is 60-90% for identical twins but less than 10% for fraternal twins. It’s not purely genetic, however, or the risk would be 100% for identical twins.

Secondly the increase in rates – from 3 per 10,000 in the 1940’s and 50’s, to more than 1 per 100 now – is too rapid to have a purely genetic cause. Improved diagnosis cannot explain all of the increase since it has continued to increase after 1990 when autism became well recognized. Furthermore, until 1960 nearly all cases exhibited symptoms from birth, but now about 80% are regressive where the child develops normally to age 1.5 or 2 with a sudden decline in functioning.

There must be some environmental change involved. Autism can best be explained by an epigenetic error during gestation which predisposes the child to autism, plus some environmental insult (the technical term) by age 3 which triggers the regression. As Walsh puts it: In essence, autism appears to be a gene programming disorder that develops in undermethylated persons who experience environmental insults that produce overwhelming oxidative stress.

Like schizophrenia and depression, autism has distinct chemical abnormalities. These include: deficiencies of zinc, magnesium, selenium, vitamins A and B6; elevated copper, mercury, lead and other toxic metals; elevated urinary pyrroles; undermethylation; and low glutathione levels. Gastro-intestinal disorders are very common, usually with dysbiosis (unhealthy gut bacteria).

Walsh rejects the belief that autism is incurable. In his experience, aggressive bionutrient therapy by age 4 provides the most complete recovery, but progress can be made at any age (he reported a 17 year old girl who started speaking after two months of treatment). Without treatment the conditions often remain permanent and very disabling. The objective of bionutrient therapy is to restore the biochemical imbalances, reduce oxidative stress, and heal the digestive tract. Again this therapy is best done under the supervision of experienced professionals.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

474 Biochemical Therapy [4 June 2018]

In previous articles on nutrition and mental health [#297 8 Dec 2014 “Mental Health Revolution”; #300 5 Jan 2015 “Medicate or Nutrate?”; and #317 4 May 2015 “Nutritional Psychiatry”] I argued that it was time for another revolution in mental health treatment. A recent book by William J. Walsh (revised 2014), Nutrient Power – Heal Your Biochemistry and Heal Your Brain, indicates that this revolution is well on its way.

Walsh worked closely with Dr. Carl Pfeiffer, a pioneer in nutritional treatment of mental illness and the first to recognize that there were different biochemical types of schizophrenia (in my personal reference library I have a 1970 copy of Pfeiffer’s book The Schizophrenias, Ours to Conquer). Walsh went on to refine both the diagnosis and nutritional treatment (which he calls biochemical therapy) of mental illness based on recent research. His book Nutrient Power summarizes many decades of research and tens of thousands of cases.

Brain biochemistry is highly complex. More than 100 different neurotransmitters are active in the brain, and mental health depends on their proper function at the nerve synapses. Each neurotransmitter depends on numerous nutrients for its synthesis and function. Special proteins called transporters embedded in the nerve cell membranes allow the neurotransmitters to be reused. Epigenetics – inheritable environmental factors which control gene expression – plays a critical role in the production of neurotransmitters and transporters. The presence or absence of certain nutrients or toxins turns on or off the genes which produce these critical proteins.

Walsh cautions readers not to try this therapy without supervision by an experienced medical professional. There are many different biochemical imbalances which cause mental illnesses, and specific tests and history analysis are required to determine which are involved and therefore which treatment to use. Too much of a nutrient, for example folate, can be as harmful as not enough. In Walsh’s words:

The challenge is to carefully identify the specific nutrient overloads and deficiencies possessed by an individual and to provide treatments that normalize blood and brain levels of these chemicals with rifle-shot precision. This is the essence of biochemical therapy.

I find this book fascinating and will share more from it in coming weeks.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

359 Failure of SMT [February 29, 2016]

Last week I outlined the history of cancer theory over the last century. The Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT) of Cancer – that genetic mutations in the DNA of the nucleus (nDNA) of the cells initiates and drives cancer – has been the dominant theory for at least the past 60 years. Treatments developed based on this theory – surgery, radiation and chemotherapy – have been largely disappointing with limited success in life extension and significant side effects. Could this theory be wrong?

The solution to the low success rate was believed to lie in more genetic research to identify the specific mutations of particular cancers and develop targeted treatments for them. To this end the largest genetic project ever undertaken, called The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), was begun in 2006 – to map all mutations associated with 20 human cancers. As the data came in, researchers were puzzled and discouraged – the mutations seemed to be completely random. Not only did the mutations in tumors vary widely between cancer victims for the same type of cancer, they varied between tumors in the same person and even between cells of the same tumor. Some samples had no mutations at all. This unpredictable variation makes targeted drug design next to impossible.

The most compelling evidence comes from some clever experiments in the 1980s. Labs in both Vermont and Texas independently replaced the nucleus from healthy cells (leaving the healthy mitochondria) with nuclei from cancer cells, then injected them into mice. To their great surprise only one of the 68 mice developed a tumor over the next year. Next they replaced the nucleus from cancerous cells (leaving the unhealthy mitochondria) with nuclei from healthy cells and injected them into mice. This time nearly all (97%) of the mice developed cancer. Sadly these experiments didn’t fit the reigning theory so were ignored.

Furthermore all nDNA mutations known to increase cancer risk (like TP53 and BRAC-1) are known to impair mitochondrial function or repair. And of 700 targeted drugs tested, the one success (Gleevec) works in part by shutting down Warburg’s metabolic pathway, restoring oxidative energy production.

All this supports the Metabolic Theory which believes that cancer is initiated by mitochondrial damage, and the damaged nDNA is secondary. Next week I will offer hope for a cure from treatments based on the metabolic theory.

Source: Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer by Travis Christofferson, 2014.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

358 Three Theories of Cancer [22 Feb. 2016]

Otto Warburg, considered the greatest biochemist of the 20th century, was awarded the 1931 Nobel Prize for his discovery that cancer cells use an anaerobic fermentation process for energy metabolism. Even in the presence of oxygen, cancer cells use this inefficient process almost exclusively rather than the more efficient aerobic respiration used by normal cells. Warburg believed this reversion of energy production, from aerobic to anaerobic, was the prime cause of cancer, a theory that became known as the Metabolic Theory of Cancer.

Decades earlier, in the late 1870s, a German medical researcher, David Paul von Hansemann applied a newly discovered cellular dye to cancer cells and observed that their chromosomes were abnormal and chaotic rather than orderly as in normal cells. By 1890 Hansemann had developed the beginning of what came to be called the Somatic Theory of Cancer (“somatic” refers to the cell nucleus), that mutations to the nuclear DNA were the cause of cancer.

In 1911 an American pathologist, Peyton Rous, discovered that a virus could induce cancer in chickens, creating a third competing theory. This caused a wave of speculation that cancer could be an infectious disease like smallpox and polio, but was ignored and soon forgotten when no human cancer viruses turned up.

The three theories each had their following during the first half of the 20th century. Then came Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA and all attention focused on genetics. The goal became to discover the genetic mutations causing a particular cancer and create a drug to counteract them. These drugs – various forms of chemotherapy – have been largely disappointing with limited life extension and significant side effects.

Then in 1976 two American researchers, Harold Varmus and Michael Bishop, discovered that cancer-causing viruses worked by inserting a mutated human gene into the cell nucleus, effectively amalgamating the viral and somatic theories and relegating the metabolic theory to the dustbin.

Fortunately the metabolic theory hasn’t stayed in oblivion but has been kept alive and further developed by a few researchers, notably Peter Pederson and Thomas Seyfried. Next week I will outline the case for, and the promise and hope of, the resurrected metabolic theory.

Source: Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer by Travis Christofferson, 2014.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner. See this article on my website for links to sources and further reading.

269 The Implications of Epigenetics [26 May 2014]

The modern science of Epigenetics began with a few litters of skinny brown mice at Dukes University in 2003. What made these baby mice surprising was their lineage – their parents, grandparents and generations before them, were bred to have a gene that made them fat and yellow. The only difference was these mothers had been given what was essentially a prenatal vitamin, which left the gene intact while somehow turning it off. By the way the brown mice were not only slimmer but had lower rates of diabetes and cancer than their yellow ancestors. Similarly pregnant mice supplemented with choline had babies that developed super memories and as adults broke all the maze records.

External triggers suppress a gene by a process called methylation. A methyl marker on a gene turns it off, partially or completely. An environmental trigger either adds or removes a methyl marker, thus affecting the expression of that gene. Epigenetic triggers could be a vitamin, a toxin, a nutrient deficiency or even an emotional experience. They can come from your mother, grandmother or father, and can occur before conception, in utero, shortly after birth or throughout adulthood. And methyl markers may be passed down to future generations.

Babies born in Holland after the “Hunger Winter” famine of 1944-45 had low birth weights and, as adults, were at higher risk of obesity, coronary disease and certain cancers. A generation later their babies also had low birth weights. A British study found that men who started smoking before puberty had sons (but not daughters) with a higher risk of obesity. Grooming by mother rats affects their babies’ brain development, causing them to grow up calmer and more confident than babies ignored by their mothers. Identical twins experience different triggers throughout their life that alter their risk for diseases such as cancer, allowing one to develop cancer while the other does not.

What are the implications of epigenetics? The importance of prenatal nutrition and maternal nurturing are obvious. More important is the epiphany that we need not be slaves to our genes. Just because our parents and grandparents suffered from obesity, diabetes or cancer doesn’t mean we have to. We can – and I would argue should – do something about it. Improving our nutrition, reducing stress, getting sufficient exercise and rest could free us from much of our genetic destiny.

Source: Survival of the Sickest – the surprising connections between disease and longevity by Dr Sharon Moalem, 2007

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.