Steve Jobs dead at 56, his life ended prematurely by chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer
(NaturalNews) It is extremely saddening to see the cost in human lives that modern society pays for its false belief in conventional medicine and the cancer industry in particular. Visionary Steve Jobs died today, just months after being treated for cancer with chemotherapy at the Stanford Cancer Center in Palo Alto, California. In recent months, he appeared in public photos as a frail shadow of his former self. The thin legs, sunken cheek bones and loss of body weight are all classic signs of total body toxicity observed in chemotherapy and radiotherapy patients.
Steve Jobs reportedly underwent both. His chemotherapy treatments at the Standard Cancer Center are now well known (http://www.marksmarketanalysis.com/…), and his secret radiotherapy treatments in Switzerland have now been made public by former Apple executive Jerry York.
Jerry York confided in Fortune Magazine about Steve Jobs’ secret flight to Switzerland to receive radiotherapy treatment for his cancer (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01…). Fortune Magazine kept this secret until Jerry York died in March of 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_…)), after which Fortune Magazine decided its confidentiality agreement with York no longer applied, and it published details about Jobs’ secret visits to Switzerland (http://gawker.com/5737092/steve-job…).
Fortune Magazine also repeats another fact about Steve Jobs that rarely appears in the press: Namely, that Steve Jobs underwent a secret liver transplant which raised eyebrows among many who wondered why a member of the wealthy business elite could receive a liver transplant essentially on demand while everybody else had to wait on a long transplant list (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-24/…).
In January of this year, Roc4Life.com reported:
“Jobs’ medical leave is due to cancer, but no one knows whether it stems from his 2004 battle with pancreatic cancer or complications from a secret liver transplant in 2009. According to recently deceased off-the-record source from Apple’s Jerry York, Jobs took an unpublicized flight to Switzerland in 2009 to undergo unusual treatment at the University of Basel. Switzerland’s University of Basel known for their radiotherapy treatments for neuroendocrine cancer and it’s unavailability in the U.S. Experts say Jobs’ pancreatic cancer has a history of reappearing and spreading to vital organs at a slow-growing pace, which probably explains the medical leave.”
In other words, there is no question that Steve Jobs underwent multiple conventional cancer treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
In the end, however, even Steve Jobs could not overturn the laws of biochemistry. When you poison the human body, the result is the deterioration and eventual shut down of the body. Chemotherapy does not work! This fact should now be obvious, and yet every year, more and more people choose chemotherapy to their own demise — people like Farrah Fawcett, Peter Jennings, Patrick Swayze, Michael Douglas and many others (http://www.naturalnews.com/027047_c…).
Don’t they see that conventional cancer treatments do not work?
Individu tidak merokok terdedah kanser paru-paru
NEW YORK 30 Okt. – Individu yang tidak pernah merokok tetapi tinggal di kawasan yang mempunyai tahap kualiti udara yang rendah dilihat 20 peratus lebih berisiko menghidap kanser paru-paru berbanding mereka yang tinggal di kawasan udara bersih.
Menurut pengkaji, merokok dikatakan sebagai punca utama kanser paru-paru dan hanya satu daripada 10 orang menghidap penyakit tersebut terdiri daripada golongan tidak merokok.
“Kanser paru-paru di kalangan bukan perokok tidak boleh dianggap sebagai isu remeh malah penyakit tersebut menjadi pembunuh keenam di Amerika Syarikat (AS),” kata ketua kajian dari Universiti Ottawa, Michelle Turner.
Kajian terdahulu mendapati antara 14 hingga 21 daripada 100,000 wanita yang tidak merokok menghidapi kanser paru-paru, manakala antara lima hingga 14 daripada 100,000 lelaki yang turut tidak merokok menghidap penyakit itu.
Zarah halus dalam pencemaran udara yang boleh menyebabkan iritasi pada paru-paru dilihat faktor utama menyumbang kepada pembentukan kanser, namun para pengkaji tidak dapat mengesahkan teori tersebut selain daripada merokok.
Kajian tersebut dijalankan terhadap lebih 180,000 individu yang tidak merokok berusia 26 tahun di 50 negeri di AS termasuk Puerto Rico dan sepanjang kajian dijalankan, seramai 1,100 orang meninggal dunia akibat kanser paru-paru.
Kajian tersebut bagaimanapun menjelaskan, risiko untuk menghidapi kanser paru-paru akibat pencemaran udara lebih kecil berbanding menghisap rokok.
Kumpulan pengkaji turut tidak menyediakan bukti yang menyokong teori udara tercemar boleh menyebabkan kanser paru-paru, namun tidak menolak ia boleh menjadi satu daripada penyumbang kepada penyakit berbahaya itu. – REUTERS
Nanoparticles seek and destroy glioblastoma in mice
Glioblastoma is one of the most aggressive forms of brain cancer. Rather than presenting as a well-defined tumor, glioblastoma will often infiltrate the surrounding brain tissue, making it extremely difficult to treat surgically or with chemotherapy or radiation. Likewise, several mouse models of glioblastoma have proven completely resistant to all treatment attempts. In a new study, a team led by scientists at Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute (Sanford-Burnham) and the Salk Institute for Biological…read more
Remaja hidap barah tulang kronik meninggal dunia
Nurul Atikah Bazilah Samsudin menjawab panggilan telefon daripada Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak ketika di rumahnya di Kamunting, Perak pada 19 Ogos lepas. Dia meninggal dunia pada pukul 11.05 malam semalam. 10 Sept. 2011. – Utusan/ROY AZIS ABD. AZIZ
KUALA LUMPUR 10 Sept. – Remaja yang menghidap barah tulang kronik, Nurul Atikah Bazilah Samsudin, 14, yang impiannya untuk berbual dengan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak menjadi kenyataan bulan lepas, meninggal dunia pada pukul 11.05 malam semalam.
Menurut pegawai dari pejabat Perdana Menteri, jenazah Nurul Atikah kini berada di rumahnya di No 9, Lorong 4, Taman Mewah Kamunting Taiping dan akan dikebumikan esok.
Pada 19 Ogos lalu, Nurul Atikah berpeluang berbual dengan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, yang menjadi impiannya.
Nurul Atikah berpeluang berbual selama lima minit dengan Najib, menggunakan telefon bimbit Menteri Besar Perak Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir yang mengunjungi beliau di rumahnya di Taman Mewah, Kamunting, Taiping Perak. – Bernama
February 14, 2011 — A lack of research and regulation associated with energy drinks, combined with reports of toxicity and high consumption, may result in potentially dangerous health consequences in children, adolescents, and young adults, according to a review of scientific literature and Internet sources.
Sara M. Seifert, BS, and colleagues from the Department of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Integrative Medicine Program at the University of Miami, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine in Florida, reported their findings in a report published online February 14 and in the March print issue of Pediatrics.
According to the review, self-report surveys indicate that energy drinks are regularly consumed by 30% to 50% of children, adolescents, and young adults. The current trial questions the use of energy drinks in these young populations, as they provide no therapeutic benefit and are associated with risks for serious adverse health effects.
The authors note that because energy drinks are categorized as nutritional supplements, they avoid the limit of 71 mg caffeine per 12 fluid ounces that the US Food and Drug Administration has set for soda, as well as the safety testing and labeling that is required of pharmaceuticals. As a consequence, energy drinks can contain as much as 75 to 400 mg caffeine per container, with additional caffeine not included in the listed total often coming from additives such as guarana, kola nut, yerba mate, and cocoa.
“Of the 5448 US caffeine overdoses reported in 2007, 46% occurred in those younger than 19 years,” the authors note.
One study included in the review, conducted in New Zealand, found that on average, all children, teenagers, and young men would exceed an adverse effect level of 3 mg/kg per day of caffeine after consuming a single retail unit of energy drink or energy shot in addition to baseline dietary exposure.
Advertising, Risky Behavior Compound Overdose Potential
The authors suggest that youth-aimed advertising of energy drinks and a tendency for risky behavior help compound the potential for caffeine overdose in young people. The authors recommend a maximum caffeine intake of 2.5 mg/kg per day for children and 100 mg/day for adolescents, although safe levels of consumption of other energy drink ingredients have not been established.
Although US poison centers have only recently begun tracking toxicity of energy drinks, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand have reported numerous adverse outcomes associated with energy drink consumption. These include liver damage, kidney failure, respiratory disorders, agitation, confusion, seizures, psychotic conditions, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, rhabdomyolysis, tachycardia, cardiac dysrhythmias, hypertension, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death.
Despite these reports, there has been a lack of research into the physiological effects of individual energy drink ingredients. Drug interactions and dose-dependent effects remain largely unknown, although the current study reports that the ingredients 5-hydroxy tryptophan, vinpocetine, yohimbine, and ginseng have the potential for drug interactions that could result in adverse effects.
Seifert and colleagues also describe populations at highest risk for adverse health effects from energy drink consumption; these include children, adolescents, and young adults with cardiac conditions, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, eating disorders, and diabetes, and those taking other medications or consuming alcohol. The researchers also note that the caffeine in energy drinks may interfere with bone mineralization during a critical period of skeletal development.
“In the short-term, pediatric health care providers need to be aware of energy-drink consumption by children, adolescents, and young adults and the potentially dangerous consequences of inappropriate use,” the authors conclude.
They add that more research is required to determine maximum safe doses, establish effects of long-term use, and better understand adverse health effects of energy drinks. In addition, pediatric healthcare providers should screen for consumption, especially in high-risk populations, and educate families about potential adverse outcomes. Furthermore, until the safety of energy drinks is ensured, appropriate regulation of sales and consumption should be put in place to protect minors, they suggest.
In a telephone interview with Medscape Medical News, the paper’s senior author Steven E. Lipshultz, MD, from the University of Miami, noted that child healthcare providers, as well as teachers and coaches, should have information on this so that they can guide conversations, at least on the available data.
“We were really surprised,” said Dr. Lipshultz. “The [FDA] considers regular soft drinks to be foods, and tightly regulates the content and the labeling, but energy drinks are classified as dietary supplements and as such, are not subject to the same regulation or postmarketing surveillance,” he said.
“Questions about consumption of these energy drinks should become a regular part of the questions pediatricians ask so that they can get into informed discussions with parents and their children,” he added.
Dangers Go Beyond Excess Caffeine Consumption
According to independent commentator Dana M. Vieselmeyer, RD, LD, MPH, the special interest group chair of diabetes, wellness and weight management with the Pediatric Nutrition Practice Group of the American Dietetic Association, “this review highlights that consumption of energy drinks goes beyond the dangers of excess caffeine consumption, especially for children and adolescents, due to the supplemental additives these drinks contain and the unknown dangers of those in combination with caffeine and other medications. The fact that there is no known safe dose of any of those additives, or of caffeine, poses a risk.”
“The long-term health consequences of regular energy drink consumption in children and adolescents is unknown, but what information we do have tells us that these drinks can have many harmful and potentially fatal effects,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“Until further research is conducted, clinicians should make it standard practice to assess energy drink consumption when seeing their young patients, and also to educate the patient and families on the dangers of energy drink use, advising against its consumption,” Vieselmeyer said.
“This review provides a good summation of the current body of knowledge regarding energy beverages,” said John P. Higgins, MD, from the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, whose group also conducted a similar literature query on this topic.
“The marketing of energy beverages is targeting towards males in the preadolescent, adolescent, and young adult ages,” Dr. Higgins told Medscape Medical News. “The fact that a child can walk into a grocery store or supermarket and buy these and consume [them] is frightening.”
According to Dr. Higgins, as clinicians, it is “our daily duty to promote the health and well being of our patients while minimizing risk. The medical profession, in a global manner, needs to alert our patients to the dangers of these seemingly innocuous drinks and continue to advocate for strict control or overall removal.”
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Children’s Cardiomyopathy Foundation, and the Women’s Cancer Association. The authors and commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Pediatrics. 2011;127:511-528. Abstract
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finally announced a “voluntary suspension” of the arsenic-laced drug Roxarsone, which has been widely used on chicken CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) to control an intestinal parasite that allows the chickens to feed more productively and grow faster. It also makes chicken appear pinker (i.e. “fresher”).
For some of you, this may be the first time you’re hearing about Roxarsone, but it has been used in chicken feed since the 1940s. More than 70 years later, the FDA conducted an analysis that found chickens treated with the drug do in fact have arsenic in their livers — and as a result manufacturer Pfizer will be stopping sale of the drug (brand name 3-Nitro) early this month.
Arsenic in Your Chicken?
One of the reasons I’ve long recommended avoiding conventionally raised chicken is because of the potential for it to contain arsenic. Some of the larger chicken producers, including Tyson and Perdue, phased the drug out several years back, but as of 2007, 70 percent of the 9 billion broiler chickens produced annually in the United States were still being fed Roxarsone.
Roxarsone was the first arsenic-based product approved for use in animal feed, and it has based its safety on the fact that it contains organic arsenic, which is less toxic than the other inorganic form, which is a known carcinogen. The problem is, scientific reports surfaced stating that the organic arsenic in Roxarsone could transform into inorganic arsenic, and this is what prompted the FDA to conduct its own studies.
Sure enough, upon comparing 100 chickens fed either the Roxarsone-containing feed or control feed, those fed the drug had higher levels of toxic inorganic arsenic in their livers. While FDA officials have stressed that the levels in chicken livers were too low to worry about, it should be noted that “due to technical difficulties in developing an analytical method for muscle tissue,” chicken muscle meat — which is the part of the chicken most widely consumed — was not tested for the presence of inorganic arsenic.
The good news is that as a result of the finding, Roxarsone will be phased out of chicken feed starting this month. Please note that this suspension is only taking place in the United States; Pfizer will still be manufacturing Roxarsone and shipping it overseas. There is also no word on whether this will also impact other arsenic-based drugs that are approved for use in food-producing animals, such as pigs.
What are the Health Risks of Inorganic Arsenic?
It defies common sense to intentionally lace animal feed with arsenic, given that it is a well-established toxin. Roxarsone billed itself as an “organic” form of arsenic, which means it contains both carbon and arsenic, rendering it less toxic. But the “organic” arsenic was in fact converting into inorganic arsenic at some point.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
“Chronic inorganic arsenic exposure is known to be associated with adverse health effects on several systems of the body, but is most known for causing specific types of skin lesions (sores, hyperpigmentation, and other lesions) and increased risks of cancer of the lung and skin.”
Other impacts of chronic arsenic exposure include, according to the EPA:
Kidney damage and failure
Low blood pressure
Increased risk of diabetes
Adverse liver and respiratory effects, including irritation of mucous membranes
During development, increased incidence of preterm delivery, miscarriage, stillbirths, low birth weight, and infant mortality
During childhood, decreased performance in tests of intelligence and long-term memory
Again, the FDA continues to stress that eating chicken fed Roxarsone “does not pose a health risk” due to the very low levels of inorganic arsenic detected. But it is my impression that when it comes to a known carcinogen and poison, there is no safe level of exposure.
And unfortunately, the exposure comes not only from eating the contaminated meat, but also from the environment, where arsenic-laced chicken litter is used as fertilizer. According to the U.S. EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory:
“Although some producers have discontinued use of roxarsone since 2004, vast quantities of poultry litter contaminated with ROX have been and continue to be applied to agricultural fields. ROX can be transformed to produce the more toxic and more mobile inorganic arsenic species arsenic(III) and arsenic(V), which can then undergo biomethylation to produce even more toxic arsenic species.
Long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic can cause bladder, lung, skin, kidney, and colon cancer, as well as deleterious immunological, neurological, and endocrine effects. Low-level exposure can lead to partial paralysis and diabetes.”
Arsenic from CAFOs can also contaminate drinking water. Although arsenic is a natural component in groundwater, the levels found in some areas are much higher than allowed by the EPA, and this is directly related to runoff from CAFOs. According to one source, the levels found in private wells near a Chesapeake Bay chicken farming operations are up to 13 times the legal limit!
If you think you may have been exposed to long-term arsenic poisoning, you should consult a health care professional. Arsenic can be measured in blood, urine, hair, or nails. Of these, a urine test is the simplest way to tell if you are being exposed to dangerous levels of arsenic.
If you receive your drinking water from a private well, I encourage you to test for arsenic. Kits can be ordered for this purpose. Even urban dwellers who receive treated water from their city are not completely safe from arsenic, as long-term consumption of legal allowable limits is no guarantee against accumulated arsenic poisoning. In either case, whether you receive city water or well water, I suggest you invest in a whole house filtration system or several point of use water filters.
Arsenic is Not the Only Reason to Avoid Conventional Chicken
Now that arsenic-laced feed will hopefully become a thing of the past for chicken CAFOs, can you assume that the chicken sold at your supermarket is a healthy choice?
One of the major problems with non-organic animal meat is that it tends to bioaccumulate toxins to a higher degree than vegetables, and conventional livestock feed is frequently laced with a variety of pesticides found in the sources of animal feed. The animals are also routinely dosed with high levels of antibiotics that get passed on to you through the food chain.
A new report from the University of Florida’s Emerging Pathogens Institute has also revealed that poultry was found to cause more food-borne disease than any other food, amounting to $2.4 billion in costs of illness. The primary bacteria to blame were Campylobacter, followed by Salmonella.
Consumer Reports tests indicated that 83 percent of fresh, whole broiler chickens bought at supermarkets nationwide harbor campylobacter or salmonella.
Chickens and turkeys normally harbor Campylobacter in their digestive tracts without becoming ill. Antibiotics routinely given to the birds in CAFOs don’t completely eliminate Campylobacter from the birds’ intestinal tracts, so the surviving bacteria are the tougher ones that have resisted being killed off by the antibiotics. Those bacteria proliferate in the birds and end up being passed on to you—along with their antibiotic-resistance.
Campylobacter bacteria are found on chicken carcasses in slaughterhouses and in commercial poultry products—including on the outside of poultry packaging—where they can easily infect you, your children, or your pets.
Prior studies have shown that organic chickens are far less contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In fact, conventional chicken products were found to be up to 460 times more likely to contain antibiotic-resistant strains than antibiotic-free chicken products. Locally grown chickens raised in a healthy way have nowhere near these infection rates.
How to Find Toxin-Free Chicken
Healthy, humanely raised meat — free from veterinary drugs and chemicals — is out there, and you can find it by purchasing your meat and poultry directly from a trusted farmer whose farming practices you’re familiar with. Supporting local farmers and ranchers can go a long way toward improving the entire food system, and more importantly, your personal health.
I realize that not everyone has access to small farmers, but food from local sources is increasing in popularity and is becoming much easier to come by. For an excellent list of sustainable agricultural groups in your area, please see Promoting Sustainable Agriculture — this page is filled with resources for high-quality poultry and other meats in your area.
If you’re shopping at the supermarket, I personally recommend ONLY organic pasture-raised chickens, since not only are these products safer, but they have a superior nutritional profile as well. So when buying poultry or other meat at your grocery store, look for the USDA Organic seal.
Here’s some news about cell phones and cancer which even the mainstream media has found impossible to ignore. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), has declared after a review of the research that cell phones are possible cancer-causing agents. The expert panel ruled that there was some evidence that cell phone use was linked to two types of tumors—brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas.
Some scientists say the IARC classification is still not strong enough, and that cell phone radiation should have been classified as a “Probable Human Carcinogen” based on the existing science, but evidently there were not enough studies to classify it more strongly at this time.
Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. says,
“The existing science is very clear there is risk of cancer from cell phone use. The warning might have been 2A if there were a larger number of animal studies showing this, or if there were a larger number of up-to-date human studies. It’s important to recognize the Interphone study on which the classification to a large extent relied was completed in 2004, and current studies reflecting usage patterns today would be far more damning, possibly earning a Class 1 “Human Carcinogen.”
However, according to Electromagnetic Health:
“Nonetheless, the IARC opinion is a breath of fresh air to many, and restores some integrity to a badly tarnished IARC … The IARC classification of cell phones as a ‘possible human carcinogen’ will now travel throughout the world, influencing governments far and wide, for the 1st time providing an official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents can legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices.”
Professor Dariusz Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, explains why this should probably be considered big news:
“… for the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF is possibly carcinogenic to humans. One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as ‘gold standard’ in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim.”
WHO’s Group 2 Classification of Cancer Risk
“This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data.
The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic.”
So as you can see, while some journalists and scientists are now downplaying the IARC decision, saying the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic does not mean cell phones cause cancer, and even preposterously claiming that there is no evidence of this at all, there is no uncertainty that IARC, a highly respected scientific body, is now clearly saying there is evidence of carcinogenicity, otherwise they would not have classified in category 2B.
See Citizens for Health commentary on this, including comments on the 2B classification by 20+ year veteran of the IARC, Dr. Annie J. Sasco of Bordeaux Segalen University, France
Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org says,
“We expect to see continued spin from all directions, attempting to confuse the public and raise doubt, for some time to come. Thus it is especially important citizens be able to spot the misinformation and recognize there is an extraordinary propaganda machine in motion. We expect this will get LOUDER until industry is one day forced to cry ‘Uncle” under the landslide pressure from expected lawsuits and governments.”
Already, three senior members of Congress are calling on the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a “thorough review” of the science and “adequacy” of current FCC exposure guidelines. These include Representatives Ed Markey (MA), Henry Waxman (CA) and Anna Eshoo (CA). And Reuters reports the Supreme Court is considering the fate of existing cell phone safety litigation in light of the WHO classification.
The IARC decision came only days after the Council of Europe, elders from 47 European countries, has called for a dramatic reduction in EMF exposure to humans from call phones and wireless technologies.
It is important to realize, however, that cell phones may not all be the same. Although all cell phones emit radiation, CDMA cell phones, such as those used by Sprint and Verizon, do not pulse their signals like the GSM phones used by AT&T and T-Mobile.
According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, “GSM phones emit about 28 times more radiation on average compared to CDMA phones according to one published study.” Dr. Moskowitz recommends switching to a CDMA carrier if you want to reduce your radiation exposure.
Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University, Canada, agrees pulsed radiation is more dangerous:
“Pulsed radiation is much more harmful and the true intensity is not provided as it is “averaged” during a period of time (30 minutes for public exposure in US). The average of the pulse (maximum reading) and the minimum reading
gives a false low reading. Engineers like to measure averages but living organisms react to extremes so these average readings under estimate the potential for harm if the radiation is pulsed.”
A Council of Europe committee examined evidence that the cell phones and wireless internet connections have “potentially harmful” effects on humans, and decided that immediate action was required to protect children. They ruled that the technologies pose a health risk and should be banned from schools.
The committee report argued that it was crucial to avoid repeating the mistakes made when public health officials failed to recognize the dangers of asbestos, tobacco smoking and lead. According to the Telegraph:
“The report also highlighted the potential health risks of cordless telephones and baby monitors, which rely on similar technology … The Council of Europe … is highly influential in policy-making and has often seen its decisions enacted through conventions and treaties.”
Cell Phones Affect Brain, but Does It Matter?
Study Shows Rise in Glucose Metabolism in Brain; Long-Term Effect Is Unlcear
By Kathleen Doheny WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
Feb. 22, 2011 — Cell phone use appears to have an effect on brain activity, boosting the metabolism of brain glucose in specific areas, according to a new study. Whether it’s something to be concerned about or not remains to be seen. “We don’t know that this is harmful,” researcher Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Drug Abuse, tells WebMD. What is known, she says, is that “glucose metabolism is a direct indicator of brain activity.” Brain cells use the sugar for energy. In her study, she found those who used a cell phone for 50 minutes had about a 7% rise in glucose metabolism in the brain region closest to the antenna, as documented on PET (positron emission tomography) scans. So far, Volkow says, her new research shows that “the human brain is sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation that is delivered by cell phones.” Beyond that, more research is needed, she says. The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Measuring Brain Metabolism
Volkow and colleagues placed cell phones on the left and right ears of 47 healthy volunteers and then performed the PET scans. They measured the metabolism of glucose in the brain twice, once with the right cell phone activated but the sound muted for 50 minutes (the ”on” condition) and once with both cell phones deactivated (the “off” condition). When they looked at overall brain metabolism and compared PET scans, they did not find a difference between the “on” and “off” conditions. But they did find regional effects — the 7% boost in the area closest to the antenna when the phone was on. That area includes the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole, involved with such functions as memory and other cognitive skills. That amount of increase in glucose metabolism, Volkow says, is within the range of increase seen when someone does a cognitive task, such as moving their finger. “It’s not a dramatic effect,” she tells WebMD. Yet the differences are clear, she says. The study is believed to be the first to look at brain metabolism in response to cell phone exposure. The next question, Volkow says, is whether there are long-term effects.
Cell Phones and Brain: More Questions
”It’s a very interesting finding, the implication of which is unclear,” agrees Keith Black, MD, chair and professor of neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who also directs its Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute and holds the Ruth and Lawrence Harvey Chair in Neuroscience. He reviewed the findings for WebMD but was not involved in the study. “Whether [the increased metabolism] could have a long-term effect on memory, on language, is unclear, but it certainly raises those areas as something we need to try to understand,” Black says. The new findings, raising possible concern about the effect of cell phone use on cognitive skills, are not the only unanswered questions about cell phone use, in Black’s opinion. “There’s been a lot of discussion over the past 10 years about the risk of cell phones and brain cancer,” Black says. Whether there is a link or not is not yet fully answered, he says. Another expert, Paul Thompson, PhD, professor of neurology and a neuroimaging expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, calls the finding ”startling” but also cautions that the implications are not yet clear. “The unique thing about their study is, they looked at how active brain cells are rather than blood flow,” he says. “Blood flow is a reasonable measure of brain function, but it’s better to look at the brain cells.” In an editorial accompanying the study, Henry Lai, PhD, of the University of Washington and Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, of University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, point out that the study involved participants receiving a muted call from a recorded text and that cell phones in that receiving mode emit less energy than when a user is speaking into the phone. They write that “the effect observed could thus potentially be more pronounced in normal-use situations.”
Cell Phone Industry Perspective
In a statement, John Walls, vice president of public affairs for CTIA — the Wireless Association, says cell phones are safe. “The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices, within the limits established by the FCC [Federal Communications Commission], do not pose a public health risk or cause any adverse health effects,” according to Walls. Volkow suggests using the cell’s speaker phone or using an earpiece to keep the antenna away from your head. ”All of the people using a cell phone, like me, are not going to stop using it,” Volkow tells WebMD. Black makes the same recommendations and says he worries especially about children using cell phones. “Their skulls are thinner,” he says. “Children are getting a lot more energy from cell phones delivered to their brains than adults.”
Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market
By Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill
Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) took home a fortune of at least $29 million as part of a $182 million sale by CHOP of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine to Royalty Pharma in April of last year, according to an investigation by Age of Autism. Based on an analysis of current CHOP administrative policies, the amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million.
There is nothing improper about receiving compensation for a patented innovation; but the extraordinary valuation placed on CHOP’s patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine — to effectively vote himself rich.
Offit has steadfastly refused to say how much he made from the vaccine. Based on the income distribution guidelines set forth in CHOP’s current administrative policy manual (HERE) entitled “Patent and Intellectual Property Policy,” Offit’s share of this transaction — the “inventor’s share of net income” — would have earned him a personal distribution of 30%. In a Moody’s report dated June 2008, CHOP reported net proceeds from the Rotateq transaction of $153 million, a deal basis that would put the value of Offit’s 30% share at $45.9 million. Although the royalty transaction amounts and current CHOP inventor shares are publicly known, several factors complicate a precise calculation of Offit’s income. Royalty Pharma paid $182 million for the Rotateq royalty stream, but CHOP reported proceeds of only $153 million. Since most universities calculate income based on net royalties, the lower number might more closely reflect the basis for calculating Offit’s income. If CHOP applied an inventor share of 30% to a transaction value of $153 million they would have then been required to distribute $45.9 million to Offit.
CHOP’s 30% policy for inventor share is consistent with the current practices of other children’s hospitals. But depending on what standard was in effect when the patents were filed and how it was applied to Offit’s proceeds, the amount could be lower. For example, the $29 million difference between the payment made by Royalty Pharma and the proceeds received by CHOP comprises 15.9% of the Royalty Pharma payment (15% is the lowest inventor share percentage we uncovered in our investigation) and could reflect the distribution to Offit,
So although it is clear that Offit’s personal share of CHOP’s royalty transaction was large, the exact amount could range from as little as $29 million to as much as $55 million. Age of Autism chose to feature the smaller amounts in this report.
CHOP spokeswoman Rachel Salis-Silverman, contacted by Age of Autism about Offit’s income from the vaccine, first said, “I don’t even know. That’s not public information.” She initially refused to provide an e-mail to which Age of Autism could send a detailed account of how it determined Offit’s income, but subsequently sent an e-mail saying she was expecting the information.
“We are declining comment to your questions,” she then replied after receiving our inquiry. Offit did not respond to an e-mail sent to his Children’s Hospital address. While refusing to disclose his personal profit from this transaction, Offit told Newsweek reporter Claudia Kalb last year that he got a “small percentage” of the payment and confessed that “it’s like winning the lottery.”
The $29 million-$55 million range is consistent not only with CHOP’s published royalty arrangements but with typical medical patent standards: — At Boston Children’s Hospital, inventors get 25% of “net lifetime revenues” for all income over $500,000. For royalty amounts smaller than $500,000 inventors receive 45-100% of revenues.
— At Arkansas Children’s Hospital, inventors get 35% of “net royalties” after the first $200K and 50% before that.
— At the University of Virginia, inventors get 15% of “total royalty income” over $1 million and a sliding scale of 25-50%for amounts smaller than that.
— At the University of California, inventors get 35% of “net royalties.”
Offit’s claim to a share of the profits from Merck’s Rotateq revenues is based on his role as a listed inventor on the cluster of patents that protect Merck’s vaccine. These patents share the title “Rotavirus Reassortant Vaccine” and include four granted US patents — US5626851, US5750109, US6113910 and US6290968 — and two granted European patents — EP323708 and EP493575.
All of the patents are jointly owned by CHOP and the Wistar Institute. Offit is one of the three listed inventors on the vaccine patents but holds 100% of CHOP’s inventor rights. The other two inventors, Fred Clark and Stanley Plotkin, are both affiliated with the Wistar Institute (in a December 2005 transaction that was similar to CHOP’s deal with Royalty Pharma, the Wistar Institute sold its royalty interest in Rotateq to Paul Capital for $45 million).
The CHOP policy manual that delineates the distribution of income for inventions owned by CHOP can be found (HERE) (see section III B). Clearly, based on the distribution of income rights outlined in this manual, Paul Offit had a greater personal interest in Rotateq’s commercial success than any other single individual in the world. And more than other individual in the world, he found himself in a position to directly influence that success. —
Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created not by consumer demand, but by the recommendation of an appointed body called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a single vote, ACIP can create a commercial market for a new vaccine that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a matter of months. For example, after ACIP approved the addition of Merck’s (and Offit’s) Rotateq vaccine to the childhood vaccination schedule, Merck’s Rotateq revenue rose from zero in the beginning of 2006 to $655 million in fiscal year 2008. When one multiplies a price of close to $200 per three dose series of Rotateq by a mandated market of four million children per year, it’s not hard to see the commercial value to Merck of favorable ACIP votes.
From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP. Before and during his ACIP term, Offit was involved in rotavirus vaccine development activities, the value of which ACIP influenced. Shortly before his term began in October 1998, Offit’s first two rotavirus patents were granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the first on May 6, 1997 and the second on May 12, 1998. During his ACIP term, Offit received two additional patents in 2000 and 2001.
Receiving a patent provides the potential but not the certainty of financial reward. In most cases, when an inventor’s employer receives a patent, the commercial value of the patent award is highly uncertain. In the case of Rotateq, the business uncertainty revolved around three factors: 1) the creation and eventual size of the rotavirus vaccine market, 2) the market share of competing products such as Wyeth’s RotaShield vaccine and 3) the success of Merck’s clinical trial for Rotateq and subsequent FDA approval. For the first two of these three factors, Offit’s ACIP membership gave him a direct opportunity to favorably influence his personal financial stake in Rotateq.
Four months before Offit was appointed to ACIP in October 1998, the committee had voted to give the rotavirus category a “Routine Vaccination” status, in anticipation of an FDA approval of RotaShield (oddly, ACIP made this vote before the FDA approved Wyeth’s RotaShield vaccine on October 1, 1998). Shortly after Offit’s term began, there were several additional votes involved in establishing the rotavirus vaccine market and Offit voted yes in every case. In May of 1999, the CDC published its revised childhood vaccination schedule and rotavirus vaccine was included. This series of favorable votes clearly enhanced the monetary value of Offit’s stake in Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, which was five years into clinical trials.
Nevertheless, Merck’s Rotateq vaccine was several years behind Wyeth’s RotaShield, which stood to be the market leader based on its lead in making its way through clinical trials. But when the widespread administration of RotaShield to infants started producing a high incidence of intussusception reports, including numerous fatalities, ACIP was forced to reverse itself. On October 22, 1999, ACIP voted to rescind its recommendation of the RotaShield vaccine.
Offit recused himself from this vote, although he participated in the discussion. In the meeting in which ACIP discussed RotaShield, Offit remarked, “I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.” CDC records make it clear that Offit was not silent on RotaShield. By 2001, he was actively advancing a “unique strain” hypothesis, an argument that RotaShield was formulated in a way that did increase intussusception risk whereas other formulations (e.g. Rotateq) would not.
In commercial terms, Offit had a clear stake in the earlier RotaShield decision. As a competitor to Rotateq, RotaShield’s withdrawal provided a financial opportunity for Offit’s partner, Merck. Not only did RotaShield’s withdrawal give Rotateq an opportunity to gain 100% of the rotavirus vaccine market Offit had voted to create (until April 2008, when GlaxoSmithKline’s Rotarix vaccine was approved, Merck held a monopoly on the rotavirus vaccine market), but the absence of competition enabled Merck to charge a premium price for its vaccine, significantly more than Wyeth had charged for RotaShield.
With RotaShield out of the market and the favorable rotavirus policy precedent established, when the FDA approved Rotateq on February 3, 2006, the path to profitability for Merck was set. And for CHOP, which had licensed its patent rights to Merck, the valuation of its patent portfolio soared. Faced with this newly valuable asset, CHOP chose not to take their profits in the form of a series of smaller royalty checks. Instead, they opted to sell off their rights to the income stream and receive a lump sum payment in its place. Royalty Pharma — an intellectual property investment firm that “provides liquidity to royalty owners and assumes the future risks and rewards of ownership” — stepped in to pay CHOP for the rights to its Merck royalties. CHOP, in turn, paid Offit his inventor share. Although neither CHOP nor Merck has disclosed Merck’s royalty obligation around CHOP’s patents, the fact that Royalty Pharma was motivated to pay CHOP $182 million for the right to receive the Rotateq royalty stream suggests that obligation was significant.
Other news organizations, most notably CBS News, have asked Offit to disclose the financial details of his Merck relationship. CBS New reporter Sharyl Attkisson wrote last July that, “future royalties for the [Rotateq] vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit’s share of vaccine profits? Unknown.”
Offit protested loudly over the CBS News report and went so far as accusing Attkisson of unethical conduct. “Did [Attkisson] lie about whether or not we provided materials? Of course,” Offit claimed in an August interview with the Orange County Register. He argued that in responding to a CBS News investigation of his financial ties to Merck, he readily provided full details of the payments that CBS asked for including: “the sources and amounts of every grant he has received since 1980”; “the details of his relationship, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck”; and “the details of every talk he has given for the past three years.”
A personal profit of at least $29 million seems like more than a small detail to leave out.
Compact fluorescent light bulbs may cause breast and prostate cancer
As if we don’t have enough to worry about, an Israeli scientist says those spiral-shaped compact fluorescent light bulbs may cause breast and prostate cancer. Ominous news, since the federal government is going to force all of us to buy CFL’s. Personally, I’ve stocked up on old-fashioned incandescent bulbs.
“Of course CFL’s cause cancer,” you might say. They’re loaded with mercury and it’s going to be released into the environment every time someone breaks one. As, of course, many people will. Or were you thinking no one’s ever going to drop one around the house, and everyone’s going to take them to recycling instead of dumping them in the trash where they eventually go into a landfill and then into the ground water?
But the Israeli scientist wasn’t even talking about the mercury hazard. He’s found ANOTHER problem connected to CFL’s. . . Professor Haim says that CFL’s emit a light that’s more like daylight when compared to older-style filament bulbs, which cast a yellower light. The light from CFL bulbs disrupts the body’s production of melatonin.
Melatonin is a hormone emitted by your pineal gland. It’s thought to protect against some types of breast and prostate cancers. The pineal gland secretes the largest amount of melatonin at night, but exposure to light depresses production, even if your eyes are shut.
According to the Telegraph, the website of a major UK newspaper, “A possible link between night time light exposure and breast cancer risk has been known for over a decade, since a study was published showing female [night]shift workers were more likely to develop the disease.”
Prof. Haim and his colleagues have found a much stronger association between bedroom night-time light levels and breast cancer rates than was found in the earlier studies. Their study (www.international-light-association.org/pdf/CBI-Urban-Light.pdf), published in the journal Chronobiology International, found that women who sleep with the light on run a 22 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who sleep in total darkness.
That’s a higher cancer risk than previous studies have shown, and the researchers believe the rising danger may be due to the increasing use of CFL’s. They quote another study demonstrating that bluer, shorter wavelength light — the light from CFLs — suppresses melatonin production more than the same amount of exposure to yellower light from filament bulbs.
The blue light makes people more alert and increases their body temperature and heart rate — just the opposite of what you want when you’re trying to fall asleep. Professor Haim told The Daily Telegraph that he had removed compact fluorescent bulbs from his own home.
So there you are. What can you do? As I said, I’ve stocked up on filament bulbs. The mercury hazard was enough reason, and now there’s another. Besides that, turn out the lights and go to sleep at a reasonable time instead of staying up until all hours. The more light you’re exposed to, the more your melatonin levels are thrown out of whack.
Before electricity started to become common about a hundred years ago, most people went to bed when it got dark, or shortly after. Not a bad idea.
And if you missed Wednesday’s article on “the grass cure for cancer” click here and take a look. You don’t want to miss this!
Kanser payudara serang pedalaman Kelantan
Kanser payudara, pembunuh utama golongan wanita kini dikenal pasti aktif menyerang golongan itu yang tinggal di kawasan pedalaman Kelantan.
Pengarah Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM) Datuk Dr Zaidun Kamari berkata statistik mencatatkan hampir 70 peratus kes barah payudara menyerang wanita di luar bandar atau pedalaman negeri itu.
“Meskipun begitu ramai belum menyedari kepentingan untuk mendapatkan rawatan segera di hospital kerana takut terhadap pelbagai risiko dan stigma negatif yang diterima daripada individu yang tidak berkenaan,” katanya kepada pemberita selepas Majlis Pelancaran Laman Blog Bagi Pusat Sumber Kanser Payudara, di Kota Bharu, hari ini.
Katanya ada pada kalangan penghidap hanya menerima rawatan separuh jalan kerana terpengaruh dengan kepercayaan karut apabila mengetahui harus menjalani prosedur pengambilan sampel air tulang belakang.
“Mereka terlalu takut sebagai contohnya apabila doktor mahu mengambil air tulang belakang atau mengambil darah untuk pemeriksaan, mereka risau akan lumpuh bahkan ada yang beranggapan tindakan itu akan menyebabkan mereka menjadi seorang individu yang bodoh, selain itu sikap gemar menemui bomoh juga menjadi satu faktor,” katanya.
Beliau berkata perkara tersebut merupakan antara cabaran kepada pihak hospital dan pakar perubatan menyebabkan pihaknya kini mencari beberapa inisiatif baru untuk mengenal pasti wanita penghidap kanser payudara.
Antara inisiatif berkenaan ialah mendapatkan kerjasama imam dan penghulu kampung di seluruh Kelantan yang dilihat memainkan peranan penting termasuk sebagai ‘pembuat keputusan’ dalam sesebuah komuniti, katanya.
“Sebenarnya kanser payudara ini jumlahnya adalah banyak tetapi kebanyakannya tidak dilaporkan terutama di kawasan luar bandar dan untuk sampaikan maklumat ke luar bandar adalah menjadi satu cabaran buat kita.
“Justeru kita akan pergi kepada penghulu kampung, imam-imam masjid dan juga pergi dari rumah ke rumah di pedalaman untuk mencari dan mengenal pasti golongan wanita yang berisiko ini agar dapat diberi maklumat dan bantuan awal untuk menyelamatkan nyawa mereka,” katanya.
Kanser payudara: Lelaki alami implikasi lebih teruk
KOTA BHARU 17 Okt. – Golongan lelaki di negara ini diingatkan supaya tidak memandang remeh penyakit kanser payu dara kerana mereka juga berisiko diserang penyakit itu bahkan implikasinya lebih teruk berbanding wanita.
Penyelaras Pusat Sumber Kanser Payudara Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM), Dr. Nik Munirah Nik Mahdi berkata, kanser payudara yang menyerang golongan lelaki adalah lebih berbahaya kerana sel kanser itu lebih agresif berbanding sel kanser yang menyerang golongan wanita.
“Beranggapan kanser payudara hanya menyerang wanita menyebabkan ramai lelaki yang masih memandang remeh perkara ini sedangkan mereka juga sebenarnya berisiko diserang penyakit yang sama.
“Mengikut kajian Majlis Kanser Nasional, dari 1999 hingga 2006 bagi negeri ini, seramai enam lelaki telah meninggal dunia akibat penyakit itu bahkan kebanyakan kanser payudara yang menyerang lelaki kesannya jauh lebih buruk kerana kanser berkenaan akan menular kepada organ lain dengan cepat sehingga membawa kematian,” katanya kepada pemberita selepas majlis pelancaran laman blog bagi Pusat Sumber Kanser Payudara oleh Pengerusi Lembaga Pengarah USM, Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr. M. Zawawi Ismail di sini, hari ini.
Selain itu, katanya, pada tahun lalu satu lagi kematian dicatatkan di negeri ini membabitkan lelaki menghidap penyakit kanser payudara.
Justeru, katanya, sebagaimana wanita, lelaki juga perlu mendapatkan rawatan segera sekiranya mengesan keganjilan seumpama benjolan terutama di puting payudara atau pembesaran sebelah payudara secara tiba-tiba.
Dr. Nik Munirah yang juga Pakar Radiologi berkata, lelaki di Kelantan bertuah kerana mempunyai tempat khas untuk membuat rujukan mengenai penyakit itu iaitu dengan mengunjungi Pusat Sumber Kanser Payudara di HUSM.
Katanya, pusat sumber itu yang dilancarkan pada Februari lalu diwujudkan untuk kedua-dua golongan iaitu wanita dan lelaki.
“Pusat Sumber Kanser Payudara adalah untuk semua golongan, pesakit yang ingin mendapatkan rawatan mahupun kaunseling mengenai penyakit itu boleh hadir pada bila-bila masa waktu bekerja,” katanya.
Katanya, sehingga kini pusat berkenaan mendapat sambutan memberangsangkan tetapi masih ramai yang tidak tahu mengenai kewujudan pusat berkenaan yang bersifat mesra pesakit.
Pusat sumber berkenaan yang dapat dimanfaatkan pesakit kanser payudara dan keluarga pesakit di seluruh Pantai Timur dan Semenanjung Malaysia itu selain membantu memberi rawatan dan penjagaan selepas pembedahan, ia juga dilengkapi dengan beberapa unit komputer dengan kemudahan capaian jalur lebar untuk kemudahan pesakit mencari maklumat tentang kanser itu.
Selain itu, turut disediakan mini perpustakaan yang memuatkan buku ilmuan mengenai kanser payudara.
Dr. Nik Munirah berkata, maklumat lanjut mengenai pusat sumber berkenaan boleh dilayari melalui blog http://ps1husm.blogspot. com. – BERNAMA
UPDATE 2-U.S. FDA warns of prostate cancer drug risks
Hormone treatments may raise diabetes, heart risk-FDA
* Drugs include Abbott’s Lupron, Sanofi’s Eligard (Adds FDA, company comments)
WASHINGTON Oct 20 (Reuters) – Hormone treatments for prostate cancer need new warnings about a small increased risk of diabetes and heart problems including sudden death, U.S. health officials said on Wednesday.
The medications include Abbott Laboratories Inc’s (ABT.N) Lupron, AstraZeneca Plc’s (AZN.L) Zoladex and Sanofi-Aventis SA’s (SASY.PA) Eligard.
The drugs, known as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, are used to suppress the production of testosterone, a hormone that helps fuel prostate cancer growth. The drugs are approved to relieve symptoms of advanced prostate cancer in a treatment known as androgen deprivation therapy.
The Food and Drug Administration said the risk of diabetes and heart disease in men treated with the drugs appeared to be low, but that patients should be regularly monitored for increased blood sugar or possible signs of heart damage.
Doctors also should evaluate a patient’s risk for diabetes and heart disease before starting treatment and weigh potential side effects versus benefits, the FDA said.
Other GnRH drugs include Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc’s (WPI.N) Trelstar, Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc’s (ENDP.O) Vantas, and Pfizer Inc’s (PFE.N) Synarel. Several generic versions also are sold.
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among U.S. men. More than 217,000 new cases are expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year and about 32,000 men will die from the disease, according to government estimates.
Sanofi spokeswoman Emmy Tsui said the company was “committed to the safe and effective use of Eligard” and was reviewing the FDA request. Officials at other makers had no immediate comment or could not immediately be reached.
In February, various doctors’ groups wrote in the medical journal Circulation that they felt androgen deprivation treatment was likely to raise the risk of heart attack. They called for studies to determine the level of risk.
The FDA said in May it was reviewing six studies that showed a small increased risk of diabetes or heart disease in patients treated with the drugs when compared with other prostate cancer therapies. (Reporting by Lisa Richwine; editing by Carol Bishopric)
In the pink month – the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we publish below a report by Martha Rosenberg to share with readers a fact that using hormone therapy boosts risk of breast cancer and other female organ cancers.
Unsafe At Any Dose: Increased Cancer Deaths Seen With Hormone Therapy
Want to increase your chances of getting node-positive breast cancer and dying from it? Take hormone therapy.
Pharma’s lucrative estrogen plus progestin combo is already known to increase the chance of getting breast cancer by 26 percent. But an article in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) shows hormone therapy also increases the chance of dying from breast cancer, as follow-ups are conducted on women who took it.
In fact hormone therapy, already indicted for causing delays in breast cancer diagnosis by increasing breast density (and increasing lung cancer deaths) is now so dangerous Dr. Peter B. Bach from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who wrote an accompanying JAMA editorial, told the New York Times the very advice of “taking the lowest possible doses for the shortest possible time” is now questionable. Perhaps like prescribing the fewest and lowest tar cigarettes as possible.
It is hard to image men putting up with a therapy for “outliving their testes” that kills and maims them decade after decade. Women given Premarin for their “estrogn deficiency” in the 1980s developed so much endometrial cancer, the cancer rate dropped when they quit taking the drug. Five years ago, the same thing happened with breast cancer when women quit Prempro. Who can say “iatrodemic” physician-caused epidemic? Who can say fool me twice?
Both Prempro and Premarin are made by Wyeth, now part of Pfizer.
And just as hormone therapy is repackaged for a new generation of women, so are pharma friendly press stories that push it, as Parade’s fabled piece with the model Lauren Hutton who extols hormone therapy did some years ago.
In April, the New York Times magazine ran a pro-hormone piece called The Estrogen Dilemma by Cynthia Gorney, relying on five Wyeth-linked researchers whose conflicts of interests were not disclosed. Three, Claudio Soares, Louann Brizendine and Thomas Clarkson have served on Wyeth’s speaker boards. Oops.
In 2009, the Washington Post ran a pro-hormone piece lifted intact from Massachusetts General Hospital’s industry-friendly magazine, where it ran next to a piece pushing hormone therapy for coronary heart disease written by Wyeth-linked doctors. Hormone therapy causes a 29 percent increase in heart attacks according to the Women’s Health Initiative.
Hormone therapy is also linked to asthma, lupus, scleroderma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, urinary incontinence, hearing loss, cataracts, gout, joint degeneration, dementia, stroke, blood clots, malignant melanoma, and five other kinds of cancer according to medical journals reports.
Nor does industry want to let go of the hormone gravy train.
Oblivious to the JAMA article and many others, trials are underway with NIH tax dollars, to see if women given hormones earlier than menopause will be helped instead of hurt. (Let’s start smoking at 12!) In addition to the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study trials at major medical centers conducted by several Wyeth-linked researchers, Wake Forest and at Mount Sinai medical school researchers are conducting hormone experiments on ovariectomized primates. (Like Premarin mares, immobilized on pee lines, their offspring killed, female primates suffer unduly from hormone therapy.)
Given over 5,000 lawsuits brought by women with hormone therapy-caused breast cancer, why is it still on the market? Why is it being tested (with tax dollars) to extend the franchise into a new generation of women? And why is it still presented to women as a “choice”? As in We Warned You.
Ten years ago, when pharma still said it “don’t know” about the hormone risks, Dr. Janette Sherman exposed hormone therapy’s cancer links and its diagnosis-delaying breast density in a prescient book called Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer. http://www.janettesherman.com/books.html
“The promotional literature urges we women to confer with our doctors to decide if hormone replacement is for us,” writes Sherman. “Does that mean if we have an adverse outcome as a result of our decision that we will be again blamed for the outcome?”
This week in a Times interview,” Dr. Bach makes the same observation. “The fallback is that doctors and patients should be deciding this on a one-to-one basis, weighing risks and benefits. How do you do that when you don’t know what the risks are?” he says.
Has anything changed?
More reports will be published here in the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to help readers better understand the risk of breast cancer and how to prevent the disease.
Dad’s Side Important in Breast Cancer History source
Study Shows Women Should Pay Attention to Paternal Family History for Breast and Ovarian Cancer
By Katrina Woznicki
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
Oct. 25, 2010 — Health care professionals sometimes overlook a family history of breast and ovarian cancer on the father’s side of the family when evaluating a patient, suggesting that some women may miss opportunities for genetic testing and screening, according to a new study.
Jeanna McCuaig, a researcher at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, and colleagues used patient records to compare the number of patients referred with maternal and paternal family histories of breast or ovarian cancer. Women with a maternal family history of cancer were five times more likely to be referred to specialists. The findings are published today in the online edition of The Lancet Oncology.
According to the authors, 5%-10% of breast and ovarian cancer cases are due to BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Women who carry these genetic mutations face a 55% to 87% increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and a 20% to 44% increased lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Both men and women who carry the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have the same 50% risk of passing these genetic mutations on to their children.
“Many remain unaware that these women might have inherited the mutated gene from their father … and might not routinely collect this information from their patients,” McCuaig and colleagues write. “Deficits in knowledge among healthcare providers and the general population about the inheritance patterns of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations could result in missed opportunities for genetic testing and cancer prevention in individuals with a paternal family history.”
SINGAPORE, Dec 10 (Bernama) — One in three Asian above 35, could be at risk of developing osteoporosis, according to a study by Fonterra, a New Zealand dairy nutrition company. The study analysed from 2.1 million bone scans conducted across Asia showed that there was a significant proportion of 30-year olds that did not have the desired level of bone mass that would be expected in young adulthood. The results of the study on Malaysia showed 50 percent of Malaysians would be at risk by their 50s, and their women were among the top three Asian countries at risk by their early 30s. Releasing the results of the study at the International Osteoporosis Foundation’s (IOF) first Asia Regional Meeting here today, Fonterra Asia and Middle East’s Health Platform Manager Joanne Todd said, “osteoporosis, a disease causing bones to breakdown and fracture, is not just a health issue affecting the elderly.” The study showed that more needed to be done to help people build strong bones from early adulthood to middle age, she said, adding bone mass built in early adulthood had a big impact on the fragility of bones later in life. — MORE STUDY-OSTEOPOROSIS 2 (LAST) SINGAPORE Todd said that the risk increased dramatically for men and women in their 50s, with 50 percent classified in the range of osteopenia or thinning bones, or osteoporosis. The study cited that the average dietary calcium intake for adults in Asia was 450mg per day, significantly below the Food and Agricultural Organisation and World Health Organisation recommended calcium intake of 1000 to 1300 mg per day, a potential contributor to poor bone health. The study said the Philippines and Indonesia had the poorest bone health, while Singapore and Taiwan had the strongest bones. IOF Chief Operating Officer Judy Stenmark said “osteoporosis is one of the world’s most common diseases but also one disease that is being neglected, under diagnose and under treated.” There was even no official government approved national guidelines on the disease, she said, adding the early signs of osteoporosis were height loss, back pain and stoop. An IOF’s Asian Audit report found that due to the growing and ageing population, half of the osteoporotic hip fractures would occur in Asia by 2050. — BERNAMA Cancer “vaccines”: Why wait for a therapy you can get now? UPI recently ran an article about “dendritic cell” vaccines that help patients develop an immune response against their own cancer. A new study found these “controversial” vaccines hugely increase the survival rate of colorectal cancer patients. That won’t surprise alternative cancer doctors. Some of them use these vaccines at the clinics we recommend in Adios, Cancer and German Cancer Breakthrough. Cancer cells have a talent for hiding from the body’s immune system cells. The immune cells have trouble recognizing cancer cells for the enemies they are. In the vaccine therapy, a few immune system cells are drawn from the patient’s body, cultured in a lab, and then mixed with cells from the patient’s tumor to “teach” them how to recognize it and kill it. Then the newly trained immune cells are re-injected into the patient where, hopefully, they multiply and turn into a powerful army of tumor killers. Notice that this therapy is customized to the patient: her own cells learn to fight her own particular type of cancer. And please note this isn’t what we usually mean by a “vaccine.” It’s not a way to immunize a healthy person against cancer the way a smallpox vaccine immunizes you against smallpox. The cancer vaccine strengthens the immune system of someone who already has cancer. It’s not a foolproof therapy — just one of many that a skilled alternative cancer doctor will use all at the same time to defeat cancer. But it does work well enough to attract the attention of America’s richly funded cancer establishment. The UPI story reports on a study conducted by researchers at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire and published in the journal Clinical Cancer Research. Five years after their vaccine treatment, 63 percent of the patients who developed an immune response against their own tumor were alive and tumor-free. Out of those patients who did not develop such an immune response, only 18 percent survived five years. The head researcher, Dr. Richard Barth, says, “The results of the study suggest a new way to approach cancer treatment. Basically, we’ve worked out a way to use dendritic cells, which initiate immune responses, to induce an anti-tumor response.” I love that “we’ve worked out a way” line. With all due respect, Dr. Barth, alternative doctors have been doing this for a while. But I’m not a wide-eyed fan of every alternative cancer treatment. On Wednesday, I sent you an article about one that I have some doubts about it.
By: Bart Nortonn
There, I said it – the big C word. No one wants to hear it. You may perhaps possess a loved ones member who has it, be a survivor yourself, or know someone who has died from it.
Since I have PBC (main biliary cirrhosis) I am concerned about liver cancer. I have blood tests each so quite a few months to keep an eye on my liver enzyme levels. There is certainly a high incidence of liver cancer resulting from individuals who have had liver cirrhosis.
You might have been curious how doctors can tell what stage of cancer a person has.
Alpha-fetoprotein or AFP is a type of tumor marker which is applied to diagnose cancer. These markers are utilised to determine which stage of cancer a patient has. Tumor markers are substances (mostly proteins) which have been made by the human body or by the tumor itself in response to cancer.
A high reading of selected proteins in an urine or blood sample may well indicate an a lot more aggressive cancer. Generally, the higher the resulting number on the marker, the higher the stage of cancer.
Where symptoms suggest cancer in a patient, urine and blood samples are taken and submitted to a laboratory to become tested for cancer tumor marker levels.
The results assist the physician in determining if a patient has cancer. They can also help diagnose the type of cancer the patient has.
Cancer markers also are helpful in determining the prognosis for that patient. They may be also utilized to check to see if cancer has returned after remission.
A biopsy is taken once a diagnosis of cancer has been made, and again tumor markers can help to determine the amount of cancer that is certainly present inside patient’s system.
Advanced cancer is indicated by higher tumor marker levels plus the prognosis is less favourable.
With the help of cancer markers, a doctor can then determine the best treatment for that patient.
Varieties of Cancer Markers
Some in the most common cancer markers (AFP) are utilised for diagnosing the following cancers:
Liver Ovarian Breast Gastrointestinal Pancreatic Lung Colon Prostate
Cancer research is ongoing in hopes to discover tumor markers for other different types of cancers.
Not just one tumor marker is put to use for all cancers, and not all cancers have tumor markers that work specifically for their diagnosis and treatment.
Once cancer treatment has been started by a patient, they will need to have further testing with tumor markers to see if their particular treatment is working.
If the tumor marker level declines, it typically is definitely an indication that the current treatment is working.
If the level increases or stays the same, the physician might try a different form of treatment.
It truly is important that a specified amount of time has passed between cancer marker testing to give the treatment a chance to work to the tumor.
Drawbacks of Cancer Markers
You’ll find only a few cancer markers which are able to find cancer inside the early stages. In fact, you can find specific noncancerous illnesses which can contribute to a high tumor marker level.
On occasion, cancer marker levels may perhaps not be elevated in a person who really has cancer. It’s important that all tests are taken into consideration, which include a complete physical examination, history on the patient, other laboratory tests and scans.
Another drawback of testing with markers is that quite often you get a false constructive. You can find a few factors that might contribute to an inaccurate lab test. Specific medications can alter the results of blood and urine tests, such as Vitamin C, Naproxen Sodium or Tylenol. Some antibiotics can also affect the tests.
False positives rates for cancer marker tests are commonly 5 per cent. For other false positives or false negatives and their causes go to this link.
Personally, I have lost a boss to cancer from smoking. It was not lung, but nose cancer. He was way too young to die, and was a very kind man. He was a chain smoker.
I am glad that research continues on these different types of markers to help in detecting cancer cells early on so a person has a better chance of surviving.
If you have peculiar symptoms, breast changes, weight loss, uncommon bleeding, unexplained fatigue, gnawing pain, indigestion, changes in lymph nodes, depression, or persistent cough or sore that will not heal, go to see your doctor. It truly is better to become tested early rather than wait until it’s too late to deal with it.
Author Resource:-> To find out more about this topic, visit Ortho Tri Cyclen LoArticle From Press Release | Articles Publisher | Articles Directory | OneUnites.Com
Popular Breast Cancer Drug Proven More Harmful than Helpful
Avastin, which costs about $8,000 a month and is one of the best-selling cancer drugs in the world, is now being phased out in the US due to lack of effectiveness and dangerous side effects. As reported by CNN, the FDA has deemed the drug to be more harmful than beneficial based on recent studies, and recommends phasing it out as a treatment for metastatic breast cancer. The drug will still maintain its status as an approved therapy for lung-, kidney-, colorectal- and brain cancer, however. The European Medicines Agency is also altering its recommendation, but rather than withdrawing approval entirely, Avastin will now only be prescribed in combination with the drug Paclitaxel for the treatment of breast cancer in the EU. CNN reports:
“Along with the initial approval, the FDA required Genentech, Avastin’s maker, to complete larger studies. The results of those studies were a bitter pill for patients thriving on Avastin and researchers excited by the promise of the early data. The E2100 study found that for women taking Avastin plus Paclitaxel, the cancer stopped spreading for an average of five-and-a-half months more, compared to those just taking standard chemotherapy. In the subsequent three larger studies, the benefit was much smaller, ranging from just 24 days to about two months. None of the studies, including the E2100 study, showed that patients getting Avastin lived longer than patients on standard chemotherapies. “We now have four studies that show no survival benefit,” Woodcock said.”
Serious side effects from the drug have also become apparent, including:
- High blood pressure
- Internal bleeding
- Perforated internal organs
- Heart failure
- Heart attacks
- Swelling of the brain
Avastin isn’t the only popular cancer drug that’s come on the chopping block in recent years. For example, in 2009 it was determined that long-term use of the common breast cancer drug Tamoxifen could increase your risk of developing a deadly second tumor.
Chemotherapy—Cancer Patients’ Friend or Foe?
Chemo is another cancer treatment that frequently does more harm than good, although I doubt we’ll see recommendations changing on its use anytime soon. As poor a choice as it is, it’s one of the most popular treatment strategies conventional medicine has been able to conjure. But despite its reputation as the gold-standard in cancer treatment, chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for all cancers, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004. Another study, The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD), found that more than four in 10 patients who received chemotherapy toward the end of life experienced potentially fatal effects. And after reviewing data from over 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of receiving treatment, it was found that chemotherapy hastened or caused death in 27 percent of those cases. It’s important to realize that chemotherapy drugs are, by their very nature, extremely toxic and typically do not work with your body to modulate and normalize its response to allow the cancer to resolve normally and they do absolutely nothing to address the cause of the cancer. Natural approaches, on the other hand, do not have the types of fatal side effects common with cancer drugs because they work by optimizing your body’s own natural healing capacities. And, fortunately, there are natural approaches that rival and/or exceed the limited effectiveness of conventional therapies, without the risks. The caveat, however, is that you must typically use them preventively. Two of the most important preventive strategies are vitamin D and diet.