Br J Cancer. 2007 Jul 10;
Prospective study of grapefruit intake and
risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women:
the Multiethnic Cohort Study.
Monroe KR, Murphy SP, Kolonel LN, Pike MC.
Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School
of Medicine, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-9175, USA.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that
cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) is involved in the
metabolism of oestrogens. There is evidence that
grapefruit, an inhibitor of CYP3A4, increases
plasma oestrogen concentrations. Since it is
well established that oestrogen is associated
with breast cancer risk, it is plausible that
regular intake of grapefruit would increase a
woman's risk of breast cancer. We investigated
the association of grapefruit intake with
breast cancer risk in the Hawaii-Los Angeles
Multiethnic Cohort Study, a prospective cohort
that includes over 50 000 postmenopausal women
from five racial/ethnic groups. A total of 1657
incident breast cancer cases were available for
analysis. Grapefruit intake was significantly
associated with an increased risk of breast
cancer (relative risk=1.30, 95% confidence
interval 1.06-1.58) for subjects in the highest
category of intake, that is, one-quarter
grapefruit or more per day, compared to non-
consumers (P(trend)=0.015). An increased risk
of similar magnitude was seen in users of
oestrogen therapy, users of oestrogen+progestin
therapy, and among never users of hormone
therapy. Grapefruit intake may increase the risk
of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Br J Cancer. 2007 Jul 10;
> Prospective study of grapefruit intake ....

<snip>

Sheesh. Another "cheerful" post from you Mark.

All I needed today....
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Jul 16, 4:27 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Br J Cancer. 2007 Jul 10;
> Prospective study of grapefruit intake and
> risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women:
> the Multiethnic Cohort Study.
> Monroe KR, Murphy SP, Kolonel LN, Pike MC.
> Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School
> of Medicine, University of Southern California,
> Los Angeles, CA 90089-9175, USA.
>
> In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that
> cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) is involved in the
> metabolism of oestrogens. There is evidence that
> grapefruit, an inhibitor of CYP3A4, increases
> plasma oestrogen concentrations. Since it is
> well established that oestrogen is associated
> with breast cancer risk, it is plausible that
> regular intake of grapefruit would increase a
> woman's risk of breast cancer. We investigated
> the association of grapefruit intake with
> breast cancer risk in the Hawaii-Los Angeles
> Multiethnic Cohort Study, a prospective cohort
> that includes over 50 000 postmenopausal women
> from five racial/ethnic groups. A total of 1657
> incident breast cancer cases were available for
> analysis. Grapefruit intake was significantly
> associated with an increased risk of breast
> cancer (relative risk=1.30, 95% confidence
> interval 1.06-1.58) for subjects in the highest
> category of intake, that is, one-quarter
> grapefruit or more per day, compared to non-
> consumers (P(trend)=0.015). An increased risk
> of similar magnitude was seen in users of
> oestrogen therapy, users of oestrogen+progestin
> therapy, and among never users of hormone
> therapy. Grapefruit intake may increase the risk
> of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.

Mom's 94, and drank grapefruit juice regularly until they put her on
meds that react badly to it (some blood pressure or heart med, I
forget which). No breast cancer.

Water may increase cancer prevelance amongst the male population.
Stick with your beer.

maxine in ri

maxine in ri wrote:


> Mom's 94, and drank grapefruit juice regularly until they put her on
> meds that react badly to it (some blood pressure or heart med, I
> forget which). No breast cancer.

You understand that that sort of anecdotal evidence is meaningless,
right?. There are people who lived to advanced age that smoked
cigarettes.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Chatty Cathy" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Br J Cancer. 2007 Jul 10;
>> Prospective study of grapefruit intake ....
>
> <snip>
>
> Sheesh. Another "cheerful" post from you Mark.
>
> All I needed today....

Killfile the dickhead. You will feel much better.

On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, "Default User" > wrote:
> maxine in ri wrote:
> > Mom's 94, and drank grapefruit juice regularly until they put her on
> > meds that react badly to it (some blood pressure or heart med, I
> > forget which). No breast cancer.
>
> You understand that that sort of anecdotal evidence is meaningless,
> right?. There are people who lived to advanced age that smoked
> cigarettes.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
> won't shut up.
> -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Dr. Rosenfeld states that everyone who takes "any" meds, grapefruit
will be an interaction.

He didn't speak of your cigarettes and grapefruit analogy/anecodotal
evidence report.;-) But I wonder, have you heard of Dr. Rosenfeld; if
not, forget the reply.
Dee Dee

Dee Dee wrote:

> On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, "Default User" > wrote:
> > maxine in ri wrote:
> > > Mom's 94, and drank grapefruit juice regularly until they put her
> > > on meds that react badly to it (some blood pressure or heart med,
> > > I forget which). No breast cancer.
> >
> > You understand that that sort of anecdotal evidence is meaningless,
> > right?. There are people who lived to advanced age that smoked
> > cigarettes.

> Dr. Rosenfeld states that everyone who takes "any" meds, grapefruit
> will be an interaction.
>
> He didn't speak of your cigarettes and grapefruit analogy/anecodotal
> evidence report.;-) But I wonder, have you heard of Dr. Rosenfeld; if
> not, forget the reply.

I don't see how it's important. The study referenced didn't say that
everyone who did so is guaranteed 100% going to get cancer, did it? It
said, "it is plausible that regular intake of grapefruit would increase
a woman's risk of breast cancer."

So one counter-example is meaningless.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:
> maxine in ri wrote:
>
>
>> Mom's 94, and drank grapefruit juice regularly until they put her on
>> meds that react badly to it (some blood pressure or heart med, I
>> forget which). No breast cancer.
>
> You understand that that sort of anecdotal evidence is meaningless,
> right?. There are people who lived to advanced age that smoked
> cigarettes.

Except that researchers already recognize that not every smoker develops
heart and lung disease. They don't know why, they only know that it is
the case. They know too that not everyone who develops heart and lung
disease was a smoker.

They also know that though there are exceptions, MOST smokers will
develop heart and lung disease and become morbidity and mortality
statistics.

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:31:39 +0200, Chatty Cathy wrote:
>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> Br J Cancer. 2007 Jul 10;
>>> Prospective study of grapefruit intake ....
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Sheesh. Another "cheerful" post from you Mark.
>
> I only had to read the first line. I already knew that you
> should only mix grapefruit with vodka.
>
> -sw

No, gin. I gave up grapefruit the same time I gave up gin.


Ms P

On Jul 16, 6:52 pm, Steve Wertz > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:28:47 -0000, maxine in ri wrote:
> > Water may increase cancer prevelance amongst the male population.
> > Stick with your beer.
>
> A study of 200 097 [sic] un-married males, aged 19-32 from 17
> different ethnic groups spanning 8 continents over a period of
> 18.5 years may suggest you are right.
>
> Similar tests were carried out amongst married males and proved
> without a doubt, inconclusive.
>
> -sw

Grapefruit DOES kill.
Get one lodged in your windpipe and see what happens

On Jul 16, 7:01 pm, "Default User" > wrote:
> Dee Dee wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, "Default User" > wrote:
> > > maxine in ri wrote:
> > > > Mom's 94, and drank grapefruit juice regularly until they put her
> > > > on meds that react badly to it (some blood pressure or heart med,
> > > > I forget which). No breast cancer.
>
> > > You understand that that sort of anecdotal evidence is meaningless,
> > > right?. There are people who lived to advanced age that smoked
> > > cigarettes.
> > Dr. Rosenfeld states that everyone who takes "any" meds, grapefruit
> > will be an interaction.
>
> > He didn't speak of your cigarettes and grapefruit analogy/anecodotal
> > evidence report.;-) But I wonder, have you heard of Dr. Rosenfeld; if
> > not, forget the reply.
>
> I don't see how it's important. The study referenced didn't say that
> everyone who did so is guaranteed 100% going to get cancer, did it? It
> said, "it is plausible that regular intake of grapefruit would increase
> a woman's risk of breast cancer."
>
> So one counter-example is meaningless.
>
> Brian
>


Oh, my, Brian, I was just funnin' you. Straighten up.
Dee Dee

On Jul 16, 1:27 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Br J Cancer. 2007 Jul 10;
> Prospective study of grapefruit intake and
> risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women:
> the Multiethnic Cohort Study.
> Monroe KR, Murphy SP, Kolonel LN, Pike MC.
> Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School
> of Medicine, University of Southern California,
> Los Angeles, CA 90089-9175, USA.
>
> In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that
> cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) is involved in the
> metabolism of oestrogens. There is evidence that
> grapefruit, an inhibitor of CYP3A4, increases
> plasma oestrogen concentrations. Since it is
> well established that oestrogen is associated
> with breast cancer risk, it is plausible that
> regular intake of grapefruit would increase a
> woman's risk of breast cancer. We investigated
> the association of grapefruit intake with
> breast cancer risk in the Hawaii-Los Angeles
> Multiethnic Cohort Study, a prospective cohort
> that includes over 50 000 postmenopausal women
> from five racial/ethnic groups. A total of 1657
> incident breast cancer cases were available for
> analysis. Grapefruit intake was significantly
> associated with an increased risk of breast
> cancer (relative risk=1.30, 95% confidence
> interval 1.06-1.58) for subjects in the highest
> category of intake, that is, one-quarter
> grapefruit or more per day, compared to non-
> consumers (P(trend)=0.015). An increased risk
> of similar magnitude was seen in users of
> oestrogen therapy, users of oestrogen+progestin
> therapy, and among never users of hormone
> therapy. Grapefruit intake may increase the risk
> of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.

This kind of sensational headline is a trademark of this spammer. I
can see by the responses that no one loves this guy here either --
he's all over the net with his sensationalism.

There are other places to go for detailed information and editorial on
this research regarding the possible grapefruit/breast cancer
connection,

D.

"D." wrote:
>
> This kind of sensational headline is a trademark of this spammer.
> I can see by the responses that no one loves this guy here
> either -- he's all over the net with his sensationalism.

I'm not a spammer. I have no commercial interest
in any website, nor in driving traffic to any website
for commercial purposes.

You do. You maintain a commercial advertising
website, and every post you make is touting
your blogspot commercial website.

You are advertising for your commercial blogspot
website in violation of the charters of the Usenet
discussion groups where you post. That makes you
a spammer by any definition.

Your articles are usually based on a single journal
article which you then summarize. This isn't a good
approach, because it misses the context from which
the journal article is drawn. The writers of journal
articles assume the reader is familiar with that
context, so it isn't necessary to provide every detail.

You don't have the breadth of knowledge to fill in
details that should be provided in any article
presented to the general public, so if an important
risk isn't mentioned in the original journal article,
it won't be mentioned in your derivative article.

In one of your recent articles, you advocated
taking curcumin as a supplement without
disclosing the risk. As I said before,
anyone taking a drug with a low therapeutic
index could be harmed by taking curcumin at
the same time, because curcumin retards the
clearance of many drugs from the body.
That could cause an overdose. But of course,
you don't care about that. All you care about
is driving traffic to your commercial website.

Your articles could actually hurt people,
either through your own ignorance of the risks
or the spin to favor your commercial interests.

You are not an accurate or reliable source of
information. You're just a spammer touting your
commercial website. You don't care that your
spamming activities could have terrible
consequences.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> "D." wrote:
> >
> > This kind of sensational headline is a trademark of this spammer.
> > I can see by the responses that no one loves this guy here
> > either -- he's all over the net with his sensationalism.
>
> I'm not a spammer. I have no commercial interest
> in any website, nor in driving traffic to any website
> for commercial purposes.

Correction: YOU ARE A NONCOMMERCIAL SPAMMER. In the same category as
the people who post religious messages to newsgroups where they aren't
appropriate -- and also to, for example, alt.atheism. And Doc Tavish,
whose hobby was posting antisemitic messages on soc.culture.jewish.
And the whacko who posts information about "Big Bertha Thing" stuff.

--
Dan Goodman
"You, each of you, have some special wild cards. Play with them.
Find out what makes you different and better. Because it is there,
if only you can find it." Vernor Vinge, _Rainbows End_
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> Correction: YOU ARE A NONCOMMERCIAL SPAMMER. In the same category as
> the people who post religious messages to newsgroups where they aren't
> appropriate -- and also to, for example, alt.atheism. And Doc Tavish,
> whose hobby was posting antisemitic messages on soc.culture.jewish.
> And the whacko who posts information about "Big Bertha Thing" stuff.

Do you assert that I make postings to newsgroups
where they are not relevant? Could you provide
a link to such a posting?

Also, in what sense is it possible to be both
someone posting without personal profit and be a
spammer? I certainly don't consider a certain
insane cardiologist to be a spammer, despite my
extreme distaste for that guy. As far as I know,
that guy isn't making any profit off his vandalism
of the newsgroups. If anything, I'd think his
activities would reduce his income, if any of his
patients were aware of those activities.

Also, do you not have any objection to sock-puppets
(i.e. phony supporters of disreputable posters)?

Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> Correction: YOU ARE A NONCOMMERCIAL SPAMMER. In the same category as
> the people who post religious messages to newsgroups where they aren't
> appropriate -- and also to, for example, alt.atheism. And Doc Tavish,
> whose hobby was posting antisemitic messages on soc.culture.jewish.
> And the whacko who posts information about "Big Bertha Thing" stuff.

Please provide a link to an example where I did
something like that. I don't recall posting to
any religious newsgroups, but it could have occurred
due to careless cross-posting to something I was
responding to. (Except alt.religion.scientology,
where I post from time to time, whole track. :-)

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> Dan Goodman wrote:
> >
> > Correction: YOU ARE A NONCOMMERCIAL SPAMMER.

Are you a member of the Church of Scientology?

"Dan Goodman" > wrote in message
se.com...
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> "D." wrote:
>> >
>> > This kind of sensational headline is a trademark of this spammer.
>> > I can see by the responses that no one loves this guy here
>> > either -- he's all over the net with his sensationalism.
>>
>> I'm not a spammer. I have no commercial interest
>> in any website, nor in driving traffic to any website
>> for commercial purposes.
>
> Correction: YOU ARE A NONCOMMERCIAL SPAMMER. In the same category as
> the people who post religious messages to newsgroups where they aren't
> appropriate -- and also to, for example, alt.atheism. And Doc Tavish,
> whose hobby was posting antisemitic messages on soc.culture.jewish.
> And the whacko who posts information about "Big Bertha Thing" stuff.
>
> --

And an ass. You forgot to say that he's an ass. Only an ass would think this
is funny.

"D." > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 16, 1:27 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> Br J Cancer. 2007 Jul 10;
>> Prospective study of grapefruit intake and
>> risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women:
>> the Multiethnic Cohort Study.
>> Monroe KR, Murphy SP, Kolonel LN, Pike MC.
>> Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School
>> of Medicine, University of Southern California,
>> Los Angeles, CA 90089-9175, USA.
>>
>> In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that
>> cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) is involved in the
>> metabolism of oestrogens. There is evidence that
>> grapefruit, an inhibitor of CYP3A4, increases
>> plasma oestrogen concentrations. Since it is
>> well established that oestrogen is associated
>> with breast cancer risk, it is plausible that
>> regular intake of grapefruit would increase a
>> woman's risk of breast cancer. We investigated
>> the association of grapefruit intake with
>> breast cancer risk in the Hawaii-Los Angeles
>> Multiethnic Cohort Study, a prospective cohort
>> that includes over 50 000 postmenopausal women
>> from five racial/ethnic groups. A total of 1657
>> incident breast cancer cases were available for
>> analysis. Grapefruit intake was significantly
>> associated with an increased risk of breast
>> cancer (relative risk=1.30, 95% confidence
>> interval 1.06-1.58) for subjects in the highest
>> category of intake, that is, one-quarter
>> grapefruit or more per day, compared to non-
>> consumers (P(trend)=0.015). An increased risk
>> of similar magnitude was seen in users of
>> oestrogen therapy, users of oestrogen+progestin
>> therapy, and among never users of hormone
>> therapy. Grapefruit intake may increase the risk
>> of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.
>
> This kind of sensational headline is a trademark of this spammer. I
> can see by the responses that no one loves this guy here either --
> he's all over the net with his sensationalism.
>
> There are other places to go for detailed information and editorial on
> this research regarding the possible grapefruit/breast cancer
> connection,
>
> D.
>
I love grapefruit and would eat it anyway but I'm on lipitor so I can't.

MoM