Excerpt:

Some carcinogens you already know and fear: cigarettes, asbestos, smoked meat.

But what about the ones you’ve never even heard of? That’s the crux of a new report from theAmerican Cancer Society (ACS), which rounds up 20 “suspected carcinogens” the organization would like to see studied more extensively.

Of course, that research, if it happens, will come after the chemicals, ingredients — and even lifestyle choices — are already embedded into the bedrock of our 24/7 economy.

“The objectives of this report are to identify research gaps and needs for 20 agents prioritized for review based on evidence of widespread human exposures and potential carcinogenicity in animals or humans,” Elizabeth Ward, the co-author of the report, said. 

So just what are these potential cancer causers lurking in our everyday environs? Surge Desk runs down five (not so awesome) favorites.

1. Styrene

Styrene, and its chemical compound colleague styrene-7,-8-oxide, threaten to be a stoner’s worst nightmare. Although only weakly linked to cancer in humans, there’s enough evidence in animal studies to earn the compounds a spot in the top 20.

Where will you find it? Cigarettes, marijuana and leeching into your midnight munchies via foam food packaging. 

How can you avoid it? If you eat, this is one urine test you’re doomed to fail. Styrene was detected in the urine of 87 percent of study participants during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention trial last year.  

Excerpt:

A landmark paper on homeopathy and cancer has appeared in the February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology. Scientists at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDA), led by Moshe Frenkel, MD, have confirmed the ability of four homeopathic remedies to induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in breast cancer cell lines in the laboratory. The scientists in question were from the Integrative Medicine Program, the Department of Molecular Pathology, and the Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology of MDA. Their two Indian collaborators were from the Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, Kolkata, India, where these same remedies are employed clinically with apparent success. The four ultra-dilute remedies in question were Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja.

Excerpt:

The study “provides preliminary evidence that milk thistle may be a safe, effective, supportive-care agent,” the researchers concluded in an online report in Cancer.

“Milk thistle needs to be studied further, to see how effective it is for a longer course of treatment, and whether it works well in reducing liver inflammation in other types of cancers and with other types of chemotherapy,” Kelly said in a press release issued by the American Cancer Society, publisher of Cancer. “However, our results are promising as there are no substitute medications for treating liver toxicity.”

Angel Huggzzz
Linda

Suzanne Somers’s Cancer Book “Knockout” Soars to Number One on New York Times Best Seller List…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen  www.bolenreport.com

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

It just had to happen sooner or later – the truth about the US Cancer Industry not working at all, just had to come out – to the American public, in a very big way.

If you haven’t picked up, and read, Suzanne Somers’s newest book, you don’t have anything better to do today, after you finish reading my newest newsletter, of course, than running down to the store and picking up a copy.  In fact, if you have a list of people in mind you care about, then pick up more than one, and give those people a copy.  The book is about the real world, and, frankly, I think Suzanne did a better job, much more, than she intended.

There is a Foreword to the book by Julian Whitaker MD.  Those of you who know Julian will not be surprised that he tells it like it is, clearly and succinctly.

Then Suzanne tells her story about how, about a year ago today, she had a health problem coming home on an airplane, checked into an Emergency Room unable to breathe properly, and was given about a gazillion dollars worth of what hospitals seriously label as cutting-edge testing.  She was then diagnosed by six separate doctors there with full-body cancer.  They recommended, of course, full-body chemotherapy and told her to get her affairs in order immediately.

This all came as a big surprise to Suzanne, of course, who prides herself on taking care of her health.  After the initial shock wore off common sense kicked in, as in “wait a minute here, Cancer does not come on this quick.”  There is something wrong with this situation.

Fortunately, Suzanne had health care “secret weapons” available.  Unlike most Americans she had telephone access to some of the best cutting-edge practitioners the world has to offer. She knows the same doctors I know – and she grabbed her cell phone and called a few.  They told her what to really do – for she had been tested about a month before and was, at that time, in the peak of health.

So, where then, did this “full-body cancer” come from?  Suzanne demanded a biopsy.  Of course, as you probably already suspect, the biopsy came back with no signs of cancer…  and the authoritative six doctors were tripping over themselves trying to pretend that this didn’t happen.  Their cell phone calls were probably to their Malpractice Insurance Carriers.

Then, if you think things could not get any worse, four more doctors show up, this time so-called experts in infectious diseases, and declared that “since there was no cancer, then Suzanne must have either tuberculosis, leprosy, or coccidiomycosis (valley fever)” and they declared that she must isolated from the hospital community.  They moved her to the isolation ward and put an armed police officer in front of her door so she couldn’t escape, and her family couldn’t see her.  And, of course, they told her that it would be two to six weeks before the laboratory results came back defining what was actually happening.

Now, let me explain something to you about Suzanne Somers, so you will understand the explosion that’s about to come the hospital’s way – quickly.  Suzanne is an Irish girl, descended from a long line of Celtic men and women who have developed a strong sense of right and wrong, and an even stronger sense of what it takes to right a wrong.  The Celts, as you may know, both men and women, used to strip naked, paint themselves blue, and ride their war chariots into the enemies battle lines with gusto.

With that said, I want you to take a look at the picture of Suzanne on the cover of her new book. She’s Blue.

When Suzanne demanded to be able to go home the infectious disease doctors told her she would have to agree to take all of the medications for each of the diseases they suspected she might have.  They mentioned that the leprosy medication makes you sweat blood.  Suzanne signed the papers and took the prescriptions home – but took none of them.

She called her own experts first – who told her not to take them.

Finally, Suzanne got the results back from the tests and found that she had a severe case of Valley Fever, something extremely common in the Pacific Southwest.  It is caused by a common fungus found in the dirt in California and Arizona.  And, it is easy to treat, and it is not usually life threatening.

So, why didn’t the hospital find this first, or at least look for it?  Good questions.  Unfortunately most of know the answer.  What happened to Suzanne is fairly common.  How? The test for this fungus is cheap, and does not require the use of fancy machinery and massive billing for test services, so it would simply never be used first.  In hospitals health care decisions are made using Sutton’s Law.

What’s Sutton’s Law?  In the 1920’s a bank robber named Willy Sutton was finally captured.  When asked “Willy, why do you rob banks?”  Willy answered “because that’s where the money is…”

It is the same situation with health care decisions.  Hospitals, and their doctors make decisions based on the profit on the test, or the treatment – not on what works, or is most practical.  Which, in case you were wondering, is why hospitals and Oncologists recommend chemotherapy for Cancer when they are clearly aware that it only has a 2.1% success rate over five years.  It is VERY profitable, and Oncologists will recommend it until the very end – when either the patient finally dies, or the health insurance maximum runs out.  Whichever comes first.

What’s Happening…

This book is tearing up the Cancer Industry.  Right from the start the industry brought out their best Spokes-bozos.  The guy from the American Cancer Society (“The Limousine Charity” – 71% of the contributions made to them goes to Administrative costs) was an absolute hoot, walking right into one trap after another on national television.  Clearly the industry was not  then, and is not now, prepared to fend off the attack Suzanne threw at them.  We haven’t seen this guy since.

And, of course, now the book is at the top of the New York Times Best Seller List.

Points to Consider…

The book is for the layman.  It is divided up into readable segments that make sense, and lead to the next important points.  She talks about “What Got Us here, The Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer, Preventing Cancer Before it Starts,” and offers resources.

For those of us living in the world of trying to protect, and promote, innovation in health care in general, and cancer specifically, it is a valuable resource.

Of course an old guy like me has to admit that I bought the book for the picture on the cover.  I know that Suzanne Somers is 63.  But there, on that cover, she makes 63 the new 33.  And she is wearing Celtic Blue…  You can see the cover, and the book’s beginning, by clicking here.

Stay tuned…

Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate

November 3, 2009 (Chicago, Illinois) — The practice of administering short-term hormone therapy to men with low-risk prostate cancer who undergo radiation therapy is not necessary.

The treatment does not improve survival in these men, according to the “greatly anticipated results” of a new study presented here during the plenary session of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 51st Annual Meeting.

This definitively establishes no benefit in men with low-risk disease.
“This is a landmark, practice-changing study,” said Matthew Smith, MD, who acted as a study discussant. Dr. Smith, who is from Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, suggested that the broad use and uncertain benefits of short-term androgen deprivation fueled the anticipation about results.

 
Dr. Christopher U. Jones (Courtesy of ASTRO)
“This definitively establishes no benefit in men with low-risk disease,” he continued. “Unquestionably, this is a setting where less is more,” he said, after detailing the therapy’s adverse effects.

However, short-term hormone therapy benefited men undergoing radiation for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, said Christopher U. Jones, MD, who presented the results on behalf of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 94-08 and is from Radiological Associates of Sacramento in California.

“The study is the first compelling evidence of survival benefit in men with intermediate risk,” agreed Dr. Smith.

Despite these enthusiasms, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith explained that the new study is not the final word on short-term hormone therapy in intermediate-risk patients.

The radiation doses and techniques used in the current study, which started enrolling patients in 1994, are now dated, Dr. Jones said at a meeting press conference.

The study is the first compelling evidence of survival benefit in men with intermediate risk.
“In current practice, these intermediate-risk patients get a higher dose of radiation,” he said, suggesting that modern radiation might eliminate the need for androgen deprivation in these patients.

Another RTOG study (08-15) is underway to evaluate more modern high-dose radiation methods and hormone therapy in these intermediate-risk patients, both he and Dr. Smith pointed out.

Comparable Outcomes in Low-Risk Patients

The landmark study presented at the meeting, with 1979 participants, is the largest prostate cancer study to date, and is still ongoing, Dr. Jones noted.

Originally, the study was designed to evaluate the treatment of men with low-risk prostate cancer only, but the definition of low risk evolved as the study got underway, Dr. Jones explained

“When we started this study in 1994, all of these patients were considered low risk,” he said. As prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing matured as a tool, it became clear that the study group could be further defined. “With the advent of PSA screening, we were able to further refine low- and intermediate-risk patients,” he said.

Study participants were randomized to short-term androgen-deprivation therapy (2 months before and 2 months during radiation) plus radiation, or radiation therapy alone.

About a third of the patients were low risk (n = 685), which was defined as a Gleason score of 6 or less with a PSA level of 10 ng/mL or less and a tumor stage of T2a or less.

About one half of the patients were intermediate risk (n = 1068), which was defined as a Gleason score of 7, a Gleason score of 6 or less and a PSA of 10 to 20 ng/mL, or a Gleason score of 6 or less and stage T2b disease.

The remaining patients were high risk (n = 226), with Gleason scores of 8 to 10.

At 8 years, the overall and disease-specific survival rates were comparable in low-risk patients treated with hormones and radiation therapy than in those treated with radiation therapy alone.

“The combination of these 2 survival indicators suggests no need for hormone therapy in low-risk patients,” Dr. Jones remarked.

Specifically, the overall survival rate at 8 years for patients treated with hormones and radiation therapy was 76%, compared with 73% for those treated with radiation therapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 – 1.39).

Low-risk patients do not need to undergo the toxicities of hormone therapy.
The disease-specific survival rate at 8 years for patients treated with hormones and radiation therapy was 98%, compared with 99% for those treated with radiation therapy alone (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83 – 1.39).

“Low-risk patients do not need to undergo the toxicities of hormone therapy,” said Dr. Jones at a press conference, referring to hot flashes, loss of sexual function, liver toxicities, and other adverse effects.

Effective Therapy for Intermediate-Risk Patients

In the study, total androgen suppression was achieved with flutamide 250 mg twice daily and either goserelin 3.6 mg once a month or leuprolide 7.5 mg once a month.

The hormone therapy apparently benefited men with intermediate-risk disease.

At 8 years, the overall and disease-specific survival rates were favorable in intermediate-risk patients treated with hormones and radiation therapy, compared with those treated with radiation therapy alone.

Specifically, the overall survival rate at 8 years for patients treated with hormones and radiation therapy was 72%, compared with 66% for those treated with radiation therapy alone (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02 – 1.49).

“Among the intermediate-risk patients, there was a 23% greater chance of dying each year for patients treated with radiation alone,” said Dr. Jones.

The disease-specific survival rate at 8 years for patients treated with hormones and radiation therapy was 98%, compared with 92% for those treated with radiation therapy alone (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.47 – 4.04). “Patients treated with radiation alone were nearly 2 and a half times more likely to die from prostate cancer,” said Dr. Jones.

The outcomes for the patients with high-risk disease were not as impressive as those for intermediate-risk disease, which probably reflects the fact that high-risk disease requires longer-term hormone therapy, Dr. Smith told the plenary audience.

Meaningful Results

“We wanted to know who needed short-term hormone therapy,” said incoming ASTRO president Anthony Zietman, MD, about the original impetus behind the new study.

Although Dr. Jones’s presentation emphasized 8-year data, the median follow-up time in the trial is a little more than 9 years, which approaches the length of time needed for meaningful results in prostate cancer, Dr. Zietman, who is from Harvard Medical School in Boston, told Medscape Oncology in an earlier interview. “Results need to be at least 10 years out to be meaningful.”

He explained that the use of short-term androgen deprivation is not as widespread now as it has been in the past.

The use of short-term hormone therapy, especially leuprolide (Lupron), in low-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy jumped from about 10% of all such patients to about 50% during the mid- to late-1990s. “This almost became the norm with urologists,” said Dr. Zietman.

The use tailed off somewhat when financial incentives to use the therapy ended, he said.

Although leuprolide use in low-risk patients was partly fueled by financial considerations, it was also probably spurred on by clinicians not sticking to evidence-based medicine, Dr. Zietman explained. “Clinicians took the evidence too far,” he noted, referring to studies such as RTOG 86-10, in which the short-term therapy provided a number of benefits to men with locally advanced prostate cancer.

The new results provide some direction for clinicians, suggested Dr. Jones. “The study provides strong scientific evidence that shows us when to deliver hormone therapy with radiation in patients with localized prostate cancer,” he said in a press statement.

American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 51st Annual Meeting: Latebreaker. Presented November 2, 2009.