Cancer Prevention

We do need to change the way we look at cancer and also every other disease that has an impact on people today.  For too long we have held hard to dogma with no hope of changing thinking patterns to ones that might really lead to something beneficial.

In this mode it is exciting to learn of a tremendous new book that is doing just this. 

Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer written by Thomas Seyfried PhD, picking up where Otto Warburg left off.

The book is about, as stated by the publisher, "...addresses controversies related to the origins of cancer and provides solutions to cancer management and prevention. It expands upon Otto Warburg's well-known theory that all cancer is a disease of energy metabolism.  However, Warburg did not link his theory to the "hallmarks of cancer" and thus his theory was discredited.  This book aims to provide evidence, through case studies, that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease requring metabolic solutions for its management and prevention.  Support for this position is derived from critical assessment of current cancer theories.  Brain cancer case studies are presented as a proof of principle for metabolic solutions to disease management, but similarities are drawn to other types of cancer, including breast and colon, due to the same cellular mutations that they demonstrate."

This is in line with the work I have been doing for many years based on the work of Dr William D Kelley.  

From the Back Cover

A groundbreaking new approach to understanding, preventing, and treating cancer
Supported by evidence from more than 1,000 scientific and clinical studies, this groundbreaking book demonstrates that cancer is a metabolic disease and, more importantly, that it can be more effectively managed and prevented when it is recognized as such. Moreover, the book provides detailed evidence that the traditional view of cancer as a genetic disease has been largely responsible for the failure to develop effective therapies and preventive strategies.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease reevaluates the origins of cancer based on the latest research findings as well as several decades of studies exploring the defects in tumor cell energy metabolism. Author Thomas Seyfried is a biochemical geneticist who has been investigating the lipid biochemistry of cancer for thirty years. In this book, he carefully establishes why approaching cancer as a metabolic disease leads to better understanding and management of all aspects of the disease, including inflammation, vascularization, cell death, drug resistance, and genomic instability. In addition, the book explores:

• Origin of metastasis
• New treatment strategies that target tumor cell energy metabolism, including the ketogenic diet
• More effective prevention strategies in light of the metabolic origin of cancer
• Case studies and perspectives from the point of view of physicians, patients, and caregivers

Throughout the book, tables, figures, and graphs summarize key information and clarify complex concepts. In addition, the renowned cancer biochemist Peter Pedersen from Johns Hopkins Medical School also provides a historical perspective on the importance of the information presented in his foreward to the book.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease is essential reading for all cancer researchers and clinicians as well as public health professionals. By treating cancer as a metabolic disease, the book sets readers on a new, more promising path to understanding the origins of cancer and developing new, more effective strategies to treat and prevent it.

About the Author

THOMAS N. SEYFRIED, PhD, has taught and conducted research in the fields of neurogenetics, neurochemistry, and cancer for more than twenty-five years at Yale University and Boston College. He has published more than 150 scientific articles and book chapters and is on the editorial boards of Nutrition & Metabolism, Journal of Lipid Research, Neurochemical Research, and ASN Neuro.

While the book is expensive and large it must be considered a viable resource for people and practitioners alike. 

Continue reading →

Cancer Prevention

We do need to change the way we look at cancer and also every other disease that has an impact on people today.  For too long we have held hard to dogma with no hope of changing thinking patterns to ones that might really lead to something beneficial.

In this mode it is exciting to learn of a tremendous new book that is doing just this. 

Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer written by Thomas Seyfried PhD, picking up where Otto Warburg left off.

The book is about, as stated by the publisher, "...addresses controversies related to the origins of cancer and provides solutions to cancer management and prevention. It expands upon Otto Warburg's well-known theory that all cancer is a disease of energy metabolism.  However, Warburg did not link his theory to the "hallmarks of cancer" and thus his theory was discredited.  This book aims to provide evidence, through case studies, that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease requring metabolic solutions for its management and prevention.  Support for this position is derived from critical assessment of current cancer theories.  Brain cancer case studies are presented as a proof of principle for metabolic solutions to disease management, but similarities are drawn to other types of cancer, including breast and colon, due to the same cellular mutations that they demonstrate."

This is in line with the work I have been doing for many years based on the work of Dr William D Kelley.  

From the Back Cover

A groundbreaking new approach to understanding, preventing, and treating cancer
Supported by evidence from more than 1,000 scientific and clinical studies, this groundbreaking book demonstrates that cancer is a metabolic disease and, more importantly, that it can be more effectively managed and prevented when it is recognized as such. Moreover, the book provides detailed evidence that the traditional view of cancer as a genetic disease has been largely responsible for the failure to develop effective therapies and preventive strategies.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease reevaluates the origins of cancer based on the latest research findings as well as several decades of studies exploring the defects in tumor cell energy metabolism. Author Thomas Seyfried is a biochemical geneticist who has been investigating the lipid biochemistry of cancer for thirty years. In this book, he carefully establishes why approaching cancer as a metabolic disease leads to better understanding and management of all aspects of the disease, including inflammation, vascularization, cell death, drug resistance, and genomic instability. In addition, the book explores:

• Origin of metastasis
• New treatment strategies that target tumor cell energy metabolism, including the ketogenic diet
• More effective prevention strategies in light of the metabolic origin of cancer
• Case studies and perspectives from the point of view of physicians, patients, and caregivers

Throughout the book, tables, figures, and graphs summarize key information and clarify complex concepts. In addition, the renowned cancer biochemist Peter Pedersen from Johns Hopkins Medical School also provides a historical perspective on the importance of the information presented in his foreward to the book.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease is essential reading for all cancer researchers and clinicians as well as public health professionals. By treating cancer as a metabolic disease, the book sets readers on a new, more promising path to understanding the origins of cancer and developing new, more effective strategies to treat and prevent it.

About the Author

THOMAS N. SEYFRIED, PhD, has taught and conducted research in the fields of neurogenetics, neurochemistry, and cancer for more than twenty-five years at Yale University and Boston College. He has published more than 150 scientific articles and book chapters and is on the editorial boards of Nutrition & Metabolism, Journal of Lipid Research, Neurochemical Research, and ASN Neuro.

While the book is expensive and large it must be considered a viable resource for people and practitioners alike. 

Continue reading →

The time, it is forever changing

Kedar N. Prasad, PhD

This time the change may be back to the past, and to tell you the truth it really annoys me.

Not that it is a personal annoyance, its more like one huge road block put in your path  because other people's ignorance can really harm your health.

I think it is strange in a Jim Morrison kind of way that some get turned into celebrities by the media  not really based on out come but because they are on TV or they get interviewed by someone else in the TV spotlight.

Just because someone is on TV really does not mean they are an expert in what they plie on their show. Remember that every show has sponsors and producers.  If the recommend something it does not really mean it is effective or effective for you.  All it is is mass marketing.  And where are you when that suggestion fails you?

Its also like aggregator web sites.  They fill their pages with info taken from other sources, make it look as if this was original material, and never give you and thing to assure you it might be bogus while trying to make it look like the latest hot new discovery or cure.

Thinking of something Dannion Brinkley said not too long ago about how he believes that the it is through healthcare that the globalists will find the key to controlling the world.

If you accept Dannion's premise then it won't surprise you when I suggest how crazy it is to find too loud Jillian Michaels on "Everyday Health" as one of their 'talking heads'.

And to me it is even crazier to think she has an interview with David Agus MD about cancer.

Now mind you, I do have to agree with him on the failure of the establishment on the issue of prevention.

Agus states:  " ... we can win the war on cancer — but not the way we’re fighting it now.“We’ve made almost no impact on making people live longer with cancer,” he says in an interview ... noting that the death rate is down only 8 percent over the past six decades.Part of the problem, ..., is the way we think about the disease. “Instead of just trying to shrink the cancer, which buys a little bit of time, I want to change the entire state of your body. But I know, as a cancer doctor, I’m not that good. And I know that I lose two or three patients a week — and I don’t want to do that anymore.”The solution, he explains, is not to treat the disease but to stop it from happening in the first place. “Most cancers are preventable. We’ve got to take aggressive stances in that regard.”He goes on to tell you however, to ditch your vitamins and get your nutrients from food.

And this is where we part ways.  The parting is of course because clearly Agus has failed to do the research that proves, even if it is organic, the nutrient level in food has diminished over the years.  It  is worse for products grown in commercial agriculture.

I of course support organic and buying local but I also know that not everyone can afford this.  And so what does Agus offer you if you fall in the less affluent part of our culture?

Not much.

But our Food Cleansing Healthy Handout does and it is an inexpensive way to make food healthier.

And being that we believe in supplements, the correct choices of supplements so that it isn't a one size fits all, but a targeted approach to regaining your health.  The science on supplements supports my position, even for cancer.  Maybe something will change some day for Agus and he will see the light.

Let's hope, and work to prove Dannion wrong.

If you are looking for conscientious help in the area of supplements for health consider Health Forensics.

Read more: confusion about supplements here.

  

Continue reading →

The time, it is forever changing

Kedar N. Prasad, PhD

This time the change may be back to the past, and to tell you the truth it really annoys me.

Not that it is a personal annoyance, its more like one huge road block put in your path  because other people's ignorance can really harm your health.

I think it is strange in a Jim Morrison kind of way that some get turned into celebrities by the media  not really based on out come but because they are on TV or they get interviewed by someone else in the TV spotlight.

Just because someone is on TV really does not mean they are an expert in what they plie on their show. Remember that every show has sponsors and producers.  If the recommend something it does not really mean it is effective or effective for you.  All it is is mass marketing.  And where are you when that suggestion fails you?

Its also like aggregator web sites.  They fill their pages with info taken from other sources, make it look as if this was original material, and never give you and thing to assure you it might be bogus while trying to make it look like the latest hot new discovery or cure.

Thinking of something Dannion Brinkley said not too long ago about how he believes that the it is through healthcare that the globalists will find the key to controlling the world.

If you accept Dannion's premise then it won't surprise you when I suggest how crazy it is to find too loud Jillian Michaels on "Everyday Health" as one of their 'talking heads'.

And to me it is even crazier to think she has an interview with David Agus MD about cancer.

Now mind you, I do have to agree with him on the failure of the establishment on the issue of prevention.

Agus states:  " ... we can win the war on cancer — but not the way we’re fighting it now.“We’ve made almost no impact on making people live longer with cancer,” he says in an interview ... noting that the death rate is down only 8 percent over the past six decades.Part of the problem, ..., is the way we think about the disease. “Instead of just trying to shrink the cancer, which buys a little bit of time, I want to change the entire state of your body. But I know, as a cancer doctor, I’m not that good. And I know that I lose two or three patients a week — and I don’t want to do that anymore.”The solution, he explains, is not to treat the disease but to stop it from happening in the first place. “Most cancers are preventable. We’ve got to take aggressive stances in that regard.”He goes on to tell you however, to ditch your vitamins and get your nutrients from food.

And this is where we part ways.  The parting is of course because clearly Agus has failed to do the research that proves, even if it is organic, the nutrient level in food has diminished over the years.  It  is worse for products grown in commercial agriculture.

I of course support organic and buying local but I also know that not everyone can afford this.  And so what does Agus offer you if you fall in the less affluent part of our culture?

Not much.

But our Food Cleansing Healthy Handout does and it is an inexpensive way to make food healthier.

And being that we believe in supplements, the correct choices of supplements so that it isn't a one size fits all, but a targeted approach to regaining your health.  The science on supplements supports my position, even for cancer.  Maybe something will change some day for Agus and he will see the light.

Let's hope, and work to prove Dannion wrong.

If you are looking for conscientious help in the area of supplements for health consider Health Forensics.

Read more: confusion about supplements here.

  

Continue reading →

Death and Sleep Drugs

Well here we are.

And once again the mainstream media is reporting on the problems with sedative hypnotic drugs.

The same problems of death and higher risk of death is reported today, even when it has been reported on Natural Health News since 2005.

I want to know why things haven't changed in prescribing practices if this is such a major public health issue. And I ask why, if the risk of cancer is higher because of taking these drugs, would you want to take them?

Setting Big PhRMA profit aside, I also want to know why, if the "benefit" from these drugs is meagre, that other options are not made available to people with sleep issues.

If you have sleeping concerns and would like to learn about other and more natural ways to get real and restful sleep without drugs or drug hangover, get in touch with us through our Health Forensics program.

Sleeping pills 'linked to increased death risk'

By Michelle Roberts, Health reporter, BBC NewsSleeping pills used by thousands of people in the UK appear to be linked with a higher death risk, doctors warn.
The American study in BMJ Open compared more than 10,000 patients on tablets like temazepam with 23,000 similar patients not taking these drugs.
Death risk among users was about four times higher, although the absolute risk was still relatively low.
Experts say while the findings highlight a potential risk, proof of harm is still lacking.
They say patients should not be alarmed nor stop their medication, but if they are concerned they should discuss this with their doctor or pharmacist.
UK guidelines for NHS staff say hypnotic drugs should only be used for short periods of time because of tolerance to the drug and the risk of dependency. But they make no mention of an associated death risk, despite other studies having already reported this potential risk.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said it would consider the results of this latest study and whether it has any implications for current prescribing guidance.

Millions prescribedIn 2010 in England, there were 2.8 million prescriptions dispensed for temazepam and almost 5.3 million for another common sleeping pill called zopiclone.
There were also more than 725,000 prescriptions dispensed for zolpidem and more than 9,400 for zaleplon, two other drugs in this same family.
The latest study looked at a wide range of sleeping pills, including drugs used in the UK, such as benzodiazepines (temazepam and diazepam), non-benzodiazepines (zolpidem, zopiclone and zaleplon), barbiturates and sedative antihistamines.
The investigators, from the Jackson Hole Centre for Preventive Medicine in Wyoming and the Scripps Clinic Viterbi Family Sleep Centre in California, found that people prescribed these pills were 4.6 times more likely to die during a 2.5-year period compared to those not on the drugs. Overall, one in every 16 patients in the sleeping pill group died (638 out of 10,531 in total) compared to one in every 80 of the non-users (295 deaths out of 23,674 patients).                     This increased risk was irrespective of other underlying health conditions, such as heart and lung diseases, and other factors like smoking and alcohol use, which the researchers say they did their best to rule out. The researchers say it is not yet clear why people taking sleeping tablets may be at greater risk. The drugs are sedating and this may make users more prone to falls and other accidents. The tablets can also alter a person's breathing pattern as they sleep and they have been linked to increased suicide risk.

'Meagre benefits'In this latest study, those taking the highest doses of sleeping tablets also appeared to be at greater risk of developing cancer.
The researchers say: "The meagre benefits of hypnotics, as critically reviewed by groups without financial interest, would not justify substantial risks."
They say even short-term use may not be justifiable.
But Malcolm Lader, professor of clinical psychopharmacology at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, said people should not panic as a result of the findings.
"The study needs to be replicated in a different sample and I think we need to hold judgement until we have further studies.
"What we don't want is people stopping sleeping tablets and then going through a very disturbing period of insomnia.
"People should discuss this with their GP but should not under any circumstances stop taking their medication."
Nina Barnett, of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: "This is an important study and although it is unlikely to radically change prescribing in the immediate term, it should raise awareness and remind both patients and prescribers to the potential risks of sedative use for insomnia.
"The association between mortality and sedation is not new and this research tells us that people who took these medicines were more likely to die than people who didn't take them.
"However it does not mean that the deaths were caused by the medicine."
A spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said the safety of medicines was closely monitored and continued even after regulatory approval.

Selections from Natural Health News

Natural Health News: Ambien Ups Risk of Falling in Elderly

Jan 20, 2011

Sleep-aid-pills are effective in helping you to gain peaceful sleep at night and sleeping pill such s Ambien. It is a popular sleep aide, As soon as this sleeping pill is administered, it starts affecting the central nervous system ...

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

Natural Health News: Death and Sleeping Medication

Sep 11, 2010

Sleeping pills may increase risk of death. Pills for insomnia and anxiety 'are not candy' researchers have warned after finding the drugs are linked to an increased risk of dying. Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor. 09 Sep 2010 ...

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

Natural Health News: Drugs Contribute to Dementia, Delirium

Apr 01, 2009

... a drug widely used for treating urinary incontinence, tolteridine (Detrol); a nausea treatment drug, metoclopramide (Reglan); and drugs in the benzodiazepine category such as popular sleeping pills Ambien (zolpidem) and ...

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

Natural Health News: Looking for a Little Sleep?

Oct 23, 2005

Americans filled more than 35 million prescriptions for sleeping pills in 2004, spending $2.1 billion, Medco said, citing NIH statistics. Global Sales of Ambien, the world's most popular prescription sleep drug made by ...

Continue reading →

Death and Sleep Drugs

Well here we are.

And once again the mainstream media is reporting on the problems with sedative hypnotic drugs.

The same problems of death and higher risk of death is reported today, even when it has been reported on Natural Health News since 2005.

I want to know why things haven't changed in prescribing practices if this is such a major public health issue. And I ask why, if the risk of cancer is higher because of taking these drugs, would you want to take them?

Setting Big PhRMA profit aside, I also want to know why, if the "benefit" from these drugs is meagre, that other options are not made available to people with sleep issues.

If you have sleeping concerns and would like to learn about other and more natural ways to get real and restful sleep without drugs or drug hangover, get in touch with us through our Health Forensics program.

Sleeping pills 'linked to increased death risk'

By Michelle Roberts, Health reporter, BBC NewsSleeping pills used by thousands of people in the UK appear to be linked with a higher death risk, doctors warn.
The American study in BMJ Open compared more than 10,000 patients on tablets like temazepam with 23,000 similar patients not taking these drugs.
Death risk among users was about four times higher, although the absolute risk was still relatively low.
Experts say while the findings highlight a potential risk, proof of harm is still lacking.
They say patients should not be alarmed nor stop their medication, but if they are concerned they should discuss this with their doctor or pharmacist.
UK guidelines for NHS staff say hypnotic drugs should only be used for short periods of time because of tolerance to the drug and the risk of dependency. But they make no mention of an associated death risk, despite other studies having already reported this potential risk.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said it would consider the results of this latest study and whether it has any implications for current prescribing guidance.

Millions prescribedIn 2010 in England, there were 2.8 million prescriptions dispensed for temazepam and almost 5.3 million for another common sleeping pill called zopiclone.
There were also more than 725,000 prescriptions dispensed for zolpidem and more than 9,400 for zaleplon, two other drugs in this same family.
The latest study looked at a wide range of sleeping pills, including drugs used in the UK, such as benzodiazepines (temazepam and diazepam), non-benzodiazepines (zolpidem, zopiclone and zaleplon), barbiturates and sedative antihistamines.
The investigators, from the Jackson Hole Centre for Preventive Medicine in Wyoming and the Scripps Clinic Viterbi Family Sleep Centre in California, found that people prescribed these pills were 4.6 times more likely to die during a 2.5-year period compared to those not on the drugs. Overall, one in every 16 patients in the sleeping pill group died (638 out of 10,531 in total) compared to one in every 80 of the non-users (295 deaths out of 23,674 patients).                     This increased risk was irrespective of other underlying health conditions, such as heart and lung diseases, and other factors like smoking and alcohol use, which the researchers say they did their best to rule out. The researchers say it is not yet clear why people taking sleeping tablets may be at greater risk. The drugs are sedating and this may make users more prone to falls and other accidents. The tablets can also alter a person's breathing pattern as they sleep and they have been linked to increased suicide risk.

'Meagre benefits'In this latest study, those taking the highest doses of sleeping tablets also appeared to be at greater risk of developing cancer.
The researchers say: "The meagre benefits of hypnotics, as critically reviewed by groups without financial interest, would not justify substantial risks."
They say even short-term use may not be justifiable.
But Malcolm Lader, professor of clinical psychopharmacology at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, said people should not panic as a result of the findings.
"The study needs to be replicated in a different sample and I think we need to hold judgement until we have further studies.
"What we don't want is people stopping sleeping tablets and then going through a very disturbing period of insomnia.
"People should discuss this with their GP but should not under any circumstances stop taking their medication."
Nina Barnett, of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: "This is an important study and although it is unlikely to radically change prescribing in the immediate term, it should raise awareness and remind both patients and prescribers to the potential risks of sedative use for insomnia.
"The association between mortality and sedation is not new and this research tells us that people who took these medicines were more likely to die than people who didn't take them.
"However it does not mean that the deaths were caused by the medicine."
A spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said the safety of medicines was closely monitored and continued even after regulatory approval.

Selections from Natural Health News

Natural Health News: Ambien Ups Risk of Falling in Elderly

Jan 20, 2011

Sleep-aid-pills are effective in helping you to gain peaceful sleep at night and sleeping pill such s Ambien. It is a popular sleep aide, As soon as this sleeping pill is administered, it starts affecting the central nervous system ...

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

Natural Health News: Death and Sleeping Medication

Sep 11, 2010

Sleeping pills may increase risk of death. Pills for insomnia and anxiety 'are not candy' researchers have warned after finding the drugs are linked to an increased risk of dying. Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor. 09 Sep 2010 ...

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

Natural Health News: Drugs Contribute to Dementia, Delirium

Apr 01, 2009

... a drug widely used for treating urinary incontinence, tolteridine (Detrol); a nausea treatment drug, metoclopramide (Reglan); and drugs in the benzodiazepine category such as popular sleeping pills Ambien (zolpidem) and ...

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

Natural Health News: Looking for a Little Sleep?

Oct 23, 2005

Americans filled more than 35 million prescriptions for sleeping pills in 2004, spending $2.1 billion, Medco said, citing NIH statistics. Global Sales of Ambien, the world's most popular prescription sleep drug made by ...

Continue reading →

ALL VACCINES ARE CONTAMINATED

"The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination" - Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital

Experts say families need to take a critical look at vaccines.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Have you been rushing out to get a yearly flu vaccine or diligently taking your children for the 40 or so mandated childhood vaccines?

That's really a shame because you have unwittingly been trading a run-of-the-mill flu or just the measles, for loading up your or your children's bodies with cancer and other deadly viruses, a destructive bacteria, a chemical selected to damage fertility, and with synthetic DNA that threatens to damage your own DNA - the biologic code for your existence.

Who is saying the vaccines are contaminated?


All the vaccines mandated to children and many other vaccines as well, including the seasonal flu vaccines being mandated to health care workers, are contaminated with polysorbate 80, the central ingredient in a pharmaceutical industry patent to damage fertility. 


Read more

Continue reading →

ALL VACCINES ARE CONTAMINATED

"The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination" - Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital

Experts say families need to take a critical look at vaccines.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Have you been rushing out to get a yearly flu vaccine or diligently taking your children for the 40 or so mandated childhood vaccines?

That's really a shame because you have unwittingly been trading a run-of-the-mill flu or just the measles, for loading up your or your children's bodies with cancer and other deadly viruses, a destructive bacteria, a chemical selected to damage fertility, and with synthetic DNA that threatens to damage your own DNA - the biologic code for your existence.

Who is saying the vaccines are contaminated?


All the vaccines mandated to children and many other vaccines as well, including the seasonal flu vaccines being mandated to health care workers, are contaminated with polysorbate 80, the central ingredient in a pharmaceutical industry patent to damage fertility. 


Read more

Continue reading →

Runaway Growth

Forty years into the "War on Cancer," casualties are mounting -- and we still don't know what motivates the enemy.

Please STOP the Race for the Cure and START the Race for the Cause

Breast Cancer Screening with Thermography
Keep Doing BSE or Learn to do it for others

The Experimental Generation

In June 2010, a dermatologist cut a weird growth from my left wrist. The growth was wart-sized, grape-purple and stippled black. It was sensitive to the touch and bled when scratched.

Two weeks later, the doctor told me the tumor was malignant -- melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

The doctor also told me this:

You're part of an experimental generation.

She meant that in the past 30 years, she'd seen an alarming rise in skin cancer, and not just among older people. (I was 45.) Despite the advent of sunscreen and the fact that people don't go outside as much as they used to, she'd even been seeing more moles -- possible precursors to melanoma -- on children. 

One or more risk factors for melanoma, she reasoned, must have changed. My doctor's guess: the human-caused depletion of atmospheric ozone, which allows more ultraviolet light -- a leading melanoma risk factor -- to reach our skins.

But other variables have also changed in recent decades, including the chemicals we're exposed to through air, water and food. How much might exposure to these be increasing the risk for melanoma and other forms of cancer?

Mostly, the answer is: We really don't know. 

And that's the experiment, in which we've become the test subjects -- without our knowledge or consent. 

Less Death, More Cancer

My doctor's language, inevitably, recalled Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Writing in the years when America first went whole-hog for synthetic chemicals, Carson warned that we were subjecting humanity and nature to a vast, uncontrolled experiment.

In 1964, Carson herself died of cancer. And in a decade that saw rising cancer rates and death tolls, fear of the malady metastasized. On Dec. 23, 1971, President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, pledging to make the "conquest of cancer a national crusade."

In the next several weeks, you'll likely see 40^th-anniversary reports and pronouncements on how this epic initiative -- inevitably dubbed the "War on Cancer" -- is going. Most will gauge progress toward keeping cancer patients alive, or toward the "cancer cure" that Nixon sought. You'll likely hear disappointment that cancer remains uncured, countered with hopeful tidings of new gene-based therapies.

But here's a fact you probably won't hear much: You're actually more likely to get cancer than when the War on Cancer began.

In announcing his "conquest," Nixon noted that cancer struck one in four Americans. Four decades later -- and after hundreds of billions of dollars in research, radiation and chemotherapy -- the figure has risen to about two in five. Nearly half of all men, and more than a third of all women, will get cancer. That's about 1.6 million new diagnoses each year.

And for most major types of cancer, according to National Cancer Institute statistics, incidence remains higher than it was in the early '70s. While record-keeping in the early 1900s was less authoritative, cancer registries suggest incidence also rose steeply for most of the past century; by one estimate, it rose 85 percent between 1950 and 2001 alone.

Meanwhile, between 2003 and 2007, the incidence of liver cancer rose for men, along with thyroid cancer among women. Melanoma climbed for both genders; so did non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia and cancers of the kidney and pancreas.

The news isn't all bad: Incidence of two major types of cancer, colorectal and cervical, have dropped steeply in recent decades, largely because of improved screening. And cancer now kills less surely. Death rates for the most common forms -- lung, breast, colorectal, prostate -- have fallen in the past 20 years.

Even so, 570,000 Americans die of cancer annually -- and the overall cancer death rate is only about 6 percent lower than it was in 1950. Our boat is still leaking; we're just bailing faster.

This trend of "less death" and "more cancer" is starkest among children. Forty years ago, a child with cancer faced a virtual death sentence. (I had a sister who died of neuroblastoma, in 1971, at age 5.) Today, most child cancer victims survive, and death rates keep dropping. But incidence keeps rising -- by about 0.6 percent annually over the past 20 years, mostly driven by leukemia. An estimated 7 million American kids under age 10 are now living with cancer.

Nor is there any easy explanation for dramatic rises in cancers that strike primarily young adults, like testicular cancer. While cancer incidence is dropping in people over age 65, probably because of smoking's long decline, it's rising in people under 50 … despite smoking's long decline.

Our Chemical Romance

Cancer itself is complicated; it's really more than 100 diseases, affecting numerous parts of the body and presenting a wide range of medical challenges. But broadly, cancer happens when cells in our body grow out of control.

Human bodies make cancer cells constantly, and as far as we know, they always have. (Clinical descriptions of cancer seemingly date to ancient Egypt.) Usually, our bodies kill them off. When such cells do thrive, the causes of the disease are sometimes readily identifiable: Lung cancer is largely attributable to smoking; a small number of cancers are caused by viruses (with liver cancer, for instance, linked to hepatitis B and C). Diet and sedentary lifestyles have been implicated in some cancer. Genetics play a role, though likely much less than most people think.

Meanwhile, ever since surgeon Percival Pott observed in 18^th-century London that chimney sweeps were prone to cancers of the scrotum, we've also known that many environmental pollutants are carcinogens. Asbestos (still used in automobile brake pads) is one. So is benzene, a common pollutant in automobile and factory exhaust. Likewise formaldehyde, found in consumer products including some wooden furniture and recently designated a "known human carcinogen."

Industrial workers still often bear the brunt of the most severe exposures. The threat is also elevated for inhabitants of areas like Louisiana's "Cancer Alley," a stretch of the Mississippi River known for massive toxic releases from the petrochemical industry, and for exceptionally high cancer rates among its mostly poor, mostly black residents.

Yet the increase in cancer rates isn't confined to specific regions or occupations. Increasingly, researchers are interrogating the environment as a cause of cancer -- and suggesting that cleaning up the environment may help prevent it.

After all, the past century's rise in cancer has been paralleled by the rise in synthetic chemicals and other pollutants in everyday life. In the years following World War II, plastics took over for wood, metal and glass. And from 1950 through 1975, pesticide production -- Rachel Carson's key concern in Silent Spring -- grew sevenfold, to 1.4 billion pounds a year.

In 2008, according to an EPA inventory, there were some 84,000 synthetic chemicals on the market. (There are surely more today.) Most are made from coal, oil or natural gas. But only a handful of these substances have ever been tested for health effects. We're in contact with many of them on a daily basis. They're in diesel soot and they're in shampoo. They reach us through the packaging that contains our food, the pesticides on apples and the flame-retardant fabric woven into children's car seats.

Some of these chemicals accumulate in our bodies. Others are shed into the environment, where they may persist for decades. 

A growing array of studies, for example, link cancers including breast, prostate, leukemia and multiple myeloma to pesticide exposure. I was personally intrigued that a 2007 study from Italy tied melanoma to household pesticide use.

Perhaps the most surprising survey was Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now. The April 2010 report was issued by the President's Cancer Panel, chaired by two appointees of President George W. Bush. The widely publicized report cited "a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer." 

Wrong War, Wrong Race

Cancer patients, understandably, care less about why there's cancer than how to treat theirs. And as cancer victims go, I'm lucky; I quickly learned that mine hadn't spread. My only keepsakes so far are a couple of scars (including one for the lymphectomy). 

I'm glad for that, and glad that there are ways to help people sicker than me. But in this four-part series, I'm less interested in the War on Cancer everyone will be talking about. It feels like the War on Terror, or the War on Drugs: a hugely expensive effort to fix a problem whose causes we're ignoring.

What I want to know is, why are we getting sick? Why has melanoma incidence tripled since the 1970s? Why is thyroid cancer rising even faster? Why are men younger than me increasingly getting tumors in their testes? Why are babies getting more cancer? 

And in a country where you can't swing a surgically excised lymph node without hitting someone's Race for the Cure, why does no one ever hold a Race for the Cause?

URL for this story: http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.wshttp://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A102636

Continue reading →

Runaway Growth

Forty years into the "War on Cancer," casualties are mounting -- and we still don't know what motivates the enemy.

Please STOP the Race for the Cure and START the Race for the Cause

Breast Cancer Screening with Thermography
Keep Doing BSE or Learn to do it for others

The Experimental Generation

In June 2010, a dermatologist cut a weird growth from my left wrist. The growth was wart-sized, grape-purple and stippled black. It was sensitive to the touch and bled when scratched.

Two weeks later, the doctor told me the tumor was malignant -- melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

The doctor also told me this:

You're part of an experimental generation.

She meant that in the past 30 years, she'd seen an alarming rise in skin cancer, and not just among older people. (I was 45.) Despite the advent of sunscreen and the fact that people don't go outside as much as they used to, she'd even been seeing more moles -- possible precursors to melanoma -- on children. 

One or more risk factors for melanoma, she reasoned, must have changed. My doctor's guess: the human-caused depletion of atmospheric ozone, which allows more ultraviolet light -- a leading melanoma risk factor -- to reach our skins.

But other variables have also changed in recent decades, including the chemicals we're exposed to through air, water and food. How much might exposure to these be increasing the risk for melanoma and other forms of cancer?

Mostly, the answer is: We really don't know. 

And that's the experiment, in which we've become the test subjects -- without our knowledge or consent. 

Less Death, More Cancer

My doctor's language, inevitably, recalled Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Writing in the years when America first went whole-hog for synthetic chemicals, Carson warned that we were subjecting humanity and nature to a vast, uncontrolled experiment.

In 1964, Carson herself died of cancer. And in a decade that saw rising cancer rates and death tolls, fear of the malady metastasized. On Dec. 23, 1971, President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, pledging to make the "conquest of cancer a national crusade."

In the next several weeks, you'll likely see 40^th-anniversary reports and pronouncements on how this epic initiative -- inevitably dubbed the "War on Cancer" -- is going. Most will gauge progress toward keeping cancer patients alive, or toward the "cancer cure" that Nixon sought. You'll likely hear disappointment that cancer remains uncured, countered with hopeful tidings of new gene-based therapies.

But here's a fact you probably won't hear much: You're actually more likely to get cancer than when the War on Cancer began.

In announcing his "conquest," Nixon noted that cancer struck one in four Americans. Four decades later -- and after hundreds of billions of dollars in research, radiation and chemotherapy -- the figure has risen to about two in five. Nearly half of all men, and more than a third of all women, will get cancer. That's about 1.6 million new diagnoses each year.

And for most major types of cancer, according to National Cancer Institute statistics, incidence remains higher than it was in the early '70s. While record-keeping in the early 1900s was less authoritative, cancer registries suggest incidence also rose steeply for most of the past century; by one estimate, it rose 85 percent between 1950 and 2001 alone.

Meanwhile, between 2003 and 2007, the incidence of liver cancer rose for men, along with thyroid cancer among women. Melanoma climbed for both genders; so did non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia and cancers of the kidney and pancreas.

The news isn't all bad: Incidence of two major types of cancer, colorectal and cervical, have dropped steeply in recent decades, largely because of improved screening. And cancer now kills less surely. Death rates for the most common forms -- lung, breast, colorectal, prostate -- have fallen in the past 20 years.

Even so, 570,000 Americans die of cancer annually -- and the overall cancer death rate is only about 6 percent lower than it was in 1950. Our boat is still leaking; we're just bailing faster.

This trend of "less death" and "more cancer" is starkest among children. Forty years ago, a child with cancer faced a virtual death sentence. (I had a sister who died of neuroblastoma, in 1971, at age 5.) Today, most child cancer victims survive, and death rates keep dropping. But incidence keeps rising -- by about 0.6 percent annually over the past 20 years, mostly driven by leukemia. An estimated 7 million American kids under age 10 are now living with cancer.

Nor is there any easy explanation for dramatic rises in cancers that strike primarily young adults, like testicular cancer. While cancer incidence is dropping in people over age 65, probably because of smoking's long decline, it's rising in people under 50 … despite smoking's long decline.

Our Chemical Romance

Cancer itself is complicated; it's really more than 100 diseases, affecting numerous parts of the body and presenting a wide range of medical challenges. But broadly, cancer happens when cells in our body grow out of control.

Human bodies make cancer cells constantly, and as far as we know, they always have. (Clinical descriptions of cancer seemingly date to ancient Egypt.) Usually, our bodies kill them off. When such cells do thrive, the causes of the disease are sometimes readily identifiable: Lung cancer is largely attributable to smoking; a small number of cancers are caused by viruses (with liver cancer, for instance, linked to hepatitis B and C). Diet and sedentary lifestyles have been implicated in some cancer. Genetics play a role, though likely much less than most people think.

Meanwhile, ever since surgeon Percival Pott observed in 18^th-century London that chimney sweeps were prone to cancers of the scrotum, we've also known that many environmental pollutants are carcinogens. Asbestos (still used in automobile brake pads) is one. So is benzene, a common pollutant in automobile and factory exhaust. Likewise formaldehyde, found in consumer products including some wooden furniture and recently designated a "known human carcinogen."

Industrial workers still often bear the brunt of the most severe exposures. The threat is also elevated for inhabitants of areas like Louisiana's "Cancer Alley," a stretch of the Mississippi River known for massive toxic releases from the petrochemical industry, and for exceptionally high cancer rates among its mostly poor, mostly black residents.

Yet the increase in cancer rates isn't confined to specific regions or occupations. Increasingly, researchers are interrogating the environment as a cause of cancer -- and suggesting that cleaning up the environment may help prevent it.

After all, the past century's rise in cancer has been paralleled by the rise in synthetic chemicals and other pollutants in everyday life. In the years following World War II, plastics took over for wood, metal and glass. And from 1950 through 1975, pesticide production -- Rachel Carson's key concern in Silent Spring -- grew sevenfold, to 1.4 billion pounds a year.

In 2008, according to an EPA inventory, there were some 84,000 synthetic chemicals on the market. (There are surely more today.) Most are made from coal, oil or natural gas. But only a handful of these substances have ever been tested for health effects. We're in contact with many of them on a daily basis. They're in diesel soot and they're in shampoo. They reach us through the packaging that contains our food, the pesticides on apples and the flame-retardant fabric woven into children's car seats.

Some of these chemicals accumulate in our bodies. Others are shed into the environment, where they may persist for decades. 

A growing array of studies, for example, link cancers including breast, prostate, leukemia and multiple myeloma to pesticide exposure. I was personally intrigued that a 2007 study from Italy tied melanoma to household pesticide use.

Perhaps the most surprising survey was Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now. The April 2010 report was issued by the President's Cancer Panel, chaired by two appointees of President George W. Bush. The widely publicized report cited "a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer." 

Wrong War, Wrong Race

Cancer patients, understandably, care less about why there's cancer than how to treat theirs. And as cancer victims go, I'm lucky; I quickly learned that mine hadn't spread. My only keepsakes so far are a couple of scars (including one for the lymphectomy). 

I'm glad for that, and glad that there are ways to help people sicker than me. But in this four-part series, I'm less interested in the War on Cancer everyone will be talking about. It feels like the War on Terror, or the War on Drugs: a hugely expensive effort to fix a problem whose causes we're ignoring.

What I want to know is, why are we getting sick? Why has melanoma incidence tripled since the 1970s? Why is thyroid cancer rising even faster? Why are men younger than me increasingly getting tumors in their testes? Why are babies getting more cancer? 

And in a country where you can't swing a surgically excised lymph node without hitting someone's Race for the Cure, why does no one ever hold a Race for the Cause?

URL for this story: http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.wshttp://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A102636

Continue reading →