Just one fizzy drink a day raises men's risk of aggressive prostate cancer by 40%

Cripes!  I must have a huge prostate.  I drink gallons of the stuff.  Funny that scans show me as normal!  Some sensible comments at the end of the article

One sugary soft drink a day could raise a man’s odds of developing prostate cancer.  A 15-year study found those who drank 300ml of a fizzy drink a day – slightly less than a standard can – were 40 per cent more likely to develop the disease than those who never consumed the drinks.

Worryingly, the risk applied not to early-stage disease that was spotted via blood tests but to cancers that had progressed enough to cause symptoms.

This is significant as faster-growing forms of prostate cancer are more likely to be fatal.

It is thought that sugar triggers the release of the hormone insulin, which feeds tumours.

Prostate cancer is the most common type in British men, affecting almost 41,000 a year and killing more than 10,000.

The study, published in the respected American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is far from the first to link the sugary soft drinks enjoyed by millions of Britons every day to poor health. Previous research has flagged up heart attacks, diabetes, weight gain, brittle bones, pancreatic cancer, muscle weakness and paralysis as potential risks.

The Swedish scientists behind the latest work said that while more research is needed before the link with prostate cancer can be confirmed, there are already ‘plenty of reasons’ to cut back on soft drinks.

For the study, they tracked the health of more than 8,000 men aged 45 to 73 for an average of 15 years. The men, who were in good health at the start of the study, were also quizzed about what they liked to eat and drink.

At the end of the study, they compared the dietary habits of the men who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer with those who remained healthy and found a clear link between sugary drinks and the disease.

Lund University researcher Isabel Drake said: ‘Among the men who drank a lot of soft drinks... we saw an increased risk of prostate cancer of around 40 per cent.’ The analysis also linked large amounts of rice and pasta, cakes and biscuits, and sugary breakfast cereals with a less serious form of the disease.

There was no link with fruit juice. Diet drinks, and tea and coffee with sugar, were not included in the study.

The researchers said that although genetics plays a bigger role in prostate cancer than in many other tumours, diet also appears to be important. However, Mrs Drake, a PhD student, added that more research is needed to prove the link.

British experts also urged caution over the findings. Dr  Iain Frame, director of research at Prostate Cancer UK, said:  ‘We cannot be certain whether any particular dietary pattern has a significant impact on a man’s risk of getting prostate cancer but it is highly unlikely that any single food source will lead to an increased chance of developing the disease.

SOURCE




'My life was hell': Loving husband who said Parkinson's drug made him a 'gay sex addict' awarded £160,000 by French court

The drug company DOES warn of such side-effects in some people so should it be blamed if nobody reads its warnings?  I would have thought that the prescribing doctor and even the pharmacist could be seen as more responsible than the company.  Just what the company was warning at the time he started on the drug may be an issue, however

A Parkinson's sufferer has won a six figure pay-out against a drug giant after his medication turned him into a 'gay sex and gambling addict'.

Didier Jambart had been a well respected man, an upstanding member of the community in Nantes, western France, and a loving father and husband.

But within two years of taking the drug Requip he was so addicted to both his vices he sold his children's toys to raise money and advertised himself on the internet for sex. He has now been given £160,000 in damages after a court in Rennes, France, upheld his claims.

The ground-breaking ruling was made yesterday by the appeal court, which awarded the damages to Mr Jambart from GlaxoSmithKline, the British pharmaceuticals giant.

With his wife Christine beside him, Mr Jambart, 52, broke down in tears as judges upheld his claim that his life had become 'hell' after he started taking Requip, a drug made by GSK.

He told reporters 'this is a great day' after the court threw out the firm's appeal against an earlier ruling to award him 117,000 euros.

The court increased the level of damages to 197,468.83 euros after finding that there was 'serious, precise and corroborated' evidence to blame his transformation on Requip.

Mr Jambart said: 'It's been a seven-year battle with our limited means for recognition of the fact that GSK lied to us and shattered our lives.'

He added: 'I am happy that justice has been done. I am happy for my wife and my children. I am at last going to be able to sleep at night and profit from life. '

But he added that the money he was awarded was not like winning the lottery, and said: 'This will never replace the years of pain.'

The court heard that Mr Jambart began taking Requip for Parkinson's disease in 2003.

The formerly well respected bank manager, local councillor and a father of two from Nantes in western France, had tried to commit suicide eight times after he turned into a sex-crazed gambling addict.

He told the court that he had emptied his bank account, sold his children's toys and stolen money from work colleagues, friends and neighbours.

In total he gambled away a total of 82,000 euros, mostly placing internet bets on horse races, and engaged in a 'frantic search for gay sex'.  He began exhibiting himself on internet websites and arranging encounters, one of which resulted in him being raped.

He said his family had not understood what was going on at first.

But his behaviour returned to normal when he stumbled upon a website that made the link between Requip and addictions in 2005, and stopped taking the drug.

The court heard that warnings about Requip's side-effects had been made public in 2006. Mr Jambart said that GSK should have informed patients earlier.

SOURCE