The Cancer Conspiracy

A type of chemical used in everything from non-stick cookware to stain-resistant fabric coatings is coming under scrutiny, after animal tests showed a possible connection to cancer and birth defects.
Environment Canada is conducting an assessment of perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs, which are used to create products like the non-stick coating Teflon, the stain-repellent Stainmaster, and the waterproof membrane Gore-Tex.
"They've caught the attention of regulatory agencies because they are very persistent, they don't break down in the environment, and organisms don't knowhat to do with them. They just go into our bodies, and tend to persist in our bodies," said Jonathan Martin, an environmental chemist at the University of Toronto, who is studying the chemicals.
Perfluorinated chemicals have been in use for some 40 years, but scientists only recently developed the instruments to measure their presence in low concentrations in humans.
The new tests led the chemical company 3M to stop producing one of the chemicals, called perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) - the active ingredient in Scotchguard fabric protector - after discovering in 2000 that PFOS had somehow seeped into blood and breast milk.
Environment Canada and Health Canada are just finishing an assessment of PFOS, and expect to release their tindings next month, said Robert Chenier, chief of assessment for Environment Canada's environmental protection service. The findings could lead to regulation to control the use of PFOS in Canada.

Now, attention has turned to a second chemical in the same family, called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Manufactured by the chemical company DuPont and used in products including Teflon non-stick coating, PFOA has been associated with birth defects when fed to pregnant laboratory mice. There is also inconclusive evidence that men who worked in a now-closed PFOA manufacturing, plant in Cottage Grove, Ore., had a higher than average risk of prostate cancer.
DuPont says the chemical is safe. Still, the evidence caused the American Environmental Protection Agency to announce this week that it is investigating PFOA to determine whether it poses a health risk to the general population. Environment Canada is also embarking on an assessment of PFOA.
Environment Canada research scientist Derek Muir said scientists aren't sure yet which health effects they should look for, or how to test for them. He said PFOA can be detected in the water of Lake Ontario, but at very low concentrations.
"The EPA is concerned and is seeking more data, so we need to be cautious on it. But I'm not ready to get rid of my coated frying pans yet," said Muir.
One of the questions the scientists will be studying is how the chemicals are making their way into the bloodstreams of humans. 1n humans, PFOA can be found in concentrations of 10 nanograms per millilitre of blood, said Martin. But, he said, it's probably not a case of simply eating food fried up in non-stick pans.
He said it's likely that the chemicals accumulate from a variety of sources, including shampoos, cosmetics, furniture polish, and stain-resistant coatings on furniture and clothing. Perfluorinated chemicals can be released into the air as products are used, and can leach into water. As well, related chemicals can degrade into PFOS or PFOA. That means it's not a problem for DuPont alone, since many similar chemicals are probably contributing to the build-up in the environment.
Chenier said Environment Canada's review of PFAO will take at least six months, and possibly years.

CANCER TO INCREASE SHARPLY 09 04 03

The number of new cancer cases worldwide is expected to grow at an "alarming" rate - 50 per cent over the next 20 years, according to a major new international report released April 2, 2003.

It's predicted there will be at least 15 million new cases of cancer annually by 2020, compared to the 10 million in 2000.

The disease will grow most rapidly in the developing world, particularly Asia and South America, that are becoming more affluent. But with that affluence, there will be lifestyle changes that have deadly consequences: a sharp rise in tobacco consumption, as well as poor diets, will lead to millions contracting the killer disease.

"The outlook is grim," Dr. Paul Kleihues, one of the report's co-editors, said in an interview from Washington. D.C.

He said that in addition, the disease will add a huge financial burden to governments footing the health-care bills.

Cancer has long been considered a "western disease." In developed countries, the probability of being diagnosed with cancer is more than twice as high as in developing countries.

In rich countries, about 50 per cent of cancer patients die. However, in developing countries, 80 per cent of cancer victims already have late-stage incurable tumors when they are diagnosed.

"But we can make a difference by taking action today. We have the opportunity to stem this increase," said Kleihues.

"This report calls on governments, health practitioners and the general public to take urgent action. Action now can prevent one third of cancers, cut another third. and provide good, palliative care to the remaining third who need it:" said Kleihues.

The report said strong anti-tobacco campaigns, similar to those launched in some western nations, could be used elsewhere and prevent people from starting the deadly cigarette smoking habit. Lung cancer is attributable to smoking. but others. such as cancer of the mouth and bladder are linked.to tobacco use.

"The deadly smoking habit is particularly worrying in Central and Eastern Europe and many developing and newly industrialized countries-The tendency of youth around the world to start smoking younger will predispose them to substantial risks in later life."

As well, said the report, it's critical for the developing world to invest in early detection methods and technology to find cancer in patients while it can be treated. Kleihues said industrialized nations such as Canada have invested in early detection, and the money has paid off--with lower mortality among cancer patients.

The report also said programs which encourage healthy lifestyles and diet would also significantly reduce cancer rates - particularly cancer of the colon, breast, and prostate. It said frequent consumption of fruit and vegetables would guard against cancers of the pharynx, larynx, lung, oesophagus, stomach, colon and cervix.

In 2000, cancer was responsible fur 1 per cent of the nearly 56 million deaths worldwide from all causes.

The three leading cancer killers are: lung cancer (responsible for 17.8 per cent of all cancer deaths): stomach (10.4 per cent) and liver ( 8.8 per cent).

Industrial nations with the highest cancer rates include: U.S., Italy, Australia, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada and France. Developing countries with the lowest cancer rates are in Northern Africa.

Clinical trials and the "Therapeutic Misconception" By Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

17 12 02

Faced with a dire prognosis, some cancer patients turn to clinical trials. But how well do they, or their doctors, understand the purpose of such trials? Not very, according to a recent survey {Lancet 2001;358:1772-77}. Oncologists questioned 240 participants in treatment-related clinical trials. Half had either relapsed or progressive disease, and two-thirds had been told they had less than a ten percent chance of surviving five years. Most patients felt that they had read the informed consent form carefully and had received adequate explanations. Yet this survey found that patients enrolled in clinical trials at Boston's top cancer hospitals generally misunderstood the purpose and potential benefit of such trials.
Seventy percent did not realize that the treatment being researched had not been proven to be the best treatment for their cancer. Half did not understand that the trial used non-standard treatments or procedures or that participation might carry incremental risks (63 percent). Many did not understand that they might not receive any direct medical benefit from their participation or that the purpose of a clinical trial was to benefit future patients, not themselves. They suffered from what the authors call the "therapeutic misconception," i.e., that clinical trials are designed to benefit those who enroll in them.
Such misconceptions were shared by many of their physicians, more than half of whom did not realize that the goal of trials was to benefit future patients. Other studies show a widespread pattern of misunderstanding among patients taking part in clinical trials and the doctors who refer them. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are supposed to protect patients from unethical practices. But in one Midwestern survey, only a third of principal investigators provided a detailed description of proposed studies to review boards, and a meaningful discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives, was virtually non-existent {J Clin Ethics 1996;7:60-68}.

In a survey of cancer consultations, 83 percent of patients were never questioned to make sure that they understood what had been told to them. Before enrolling, patients have to sign "informed consent" forms. But, in one survey, the average time spent explaining the new treatment and getting consent was 10 minutes {Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1187-93}.

Where do these widespread misconceptions come from? I think they originate with health authorities who vigorously promote clinical trials. Most of what I read about the alleged benefits of clinical trials is misleading. For example, the National Cancer Institute lists various reasons to participate in clinical trials. Here is one of their top reasons: "Access to new drugs and interventions before they are widely available." This implies a therapeutic benefit to the current patient. They also state that "if the approach being studied is found to be helpful, you may be among the first to benefit." The very last thing mentioned is "an opportunity to make a valuable contribution to cancer research."
Yet, medical ethicists tell us that an altruistic desire to help future generations of patients is the primary reason to participate in a clinical trial. Deriving personal benefit, much less a cure, is so remote that you could sooner win the Powerball lottery. There is a strong temptation to talk about personal benefit, since the number of self-sacrificing martyrs to science has always been rather small.
Patients who are confronting advanced cancer should first of all learn what are the best state-of-the-art treatments. They should not enroll in clinical trials to please a favorite physician, since she herself may not understand the low probability of benefit. Sometimes, more promising treatments are available in specialized treatment centers than in hometown facilities. Second, patients should explore all viable alternative treatments, including those that are only available abroad. Finally, they should always cast a cold eye at clinical trials. Phase I trials are dose-escalation trials, which deal with unproven agents at unknown doses.
Conversely, phase III trials deal with better understood agents, but are by their nature randomized. Patients only have a coin-toss chance of receiving the desired treatment. Phase II trials are more promising since at least a reasonably safe and effective dose is known. There is no randomization and there may be some preliminary evidence of benefit. But patients should not enter any clinical trial that precludes them from taking other promising alternative treatments, as well. Their doctors should help them avoid the "therapeutic misconception" that is so rampant.

Adjuvant Radiation for Patients with Rectal Cancer?

A recent systematic overview of randomized trials of adjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer has yielded important insights {Lancet 2001;358:1291-1304}. It clearly shows that neither preoperative nor postoperative radiation therapy has any appreciable effect on overall survival in patients with this disease. Patients who received postoperative radiation therapy did have a 9 percent lower risk of death from rectal cancer than did the controls. But this survival advantage was all but wiped out by the more frequent deaths from other causes in the radiation therapy group. Overall, the risk of death from causes other than rectal cancer was 15 percent higher in those who received radiation therapy than in those who did not. This was statistically significant.
The authors state that "there was no clear benefit of radiotherapy in respect of overall survival." Yet B. D. Minsky, in his accompanying editorial, believes that these results "give support to adjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer" {Lancet 2001;358:1285-86}. That is because preoperative radiation therapy did decrease the chance of a recurrence at five years by 7 percent. The article's authors also believe that since "uncontrolled local recurrence can have a devastating effect on a patient's quality of life improved local control with radiotherapy might be a sufficient benefit to justify its use."
Yes, uncontrolled local recurrences are devastating. But so too are excess deaths caused by radiation therapy, such as through cardiovascular disease, infections and mysterious "unknown causes." Neither article nor editorial mentions that the side effects to the bowel of radiation therapy can devastate one's quality of life. Patients receiving radiation therapy for rectal cancer have more chronic bowel dysfunction compared to those who undergo surgical resection alone {Annals of Surgery 1994;220:676-82}. Diarrhea, bleeding, tenesmus (painful spasm of the anal sphincter), and pain on defecation are frequent during therapy.
These symptoms commonly subside when treatment stops. But six months to a year or more later, delayed post-radiation symptoms may develop. Here is a description of these late effects from a recent textbook: "There may be two to four or even eight or more bowel movements a day, and the urgency may be compelling. Blood is also often seen. Tenesmus is frequent, and cramping pain is often associated with defecation. Radiation proctitis frequently is associated with pain and bleeding; the latter may be severe and persistent, occasionally requiring transfusions. Severe or complete obstruction may develop."
Any evaluation of radiation therapy must take into account not just the statistical effect of treatment on recurrences, but what patients actually experience as a result of the therapy. What patients and their families need is the complete picture, of costs as well as benefits, without which it is impossible for them to make educated treatment decisions. But how many rectal cancer patients, we wonder, are told that adjuvant radiation therapy has not been proven to extend life but may in fact cause serious short and long-term adverse effects? How many are told that adjuvant radiation may in fact lead to their untimely deaths?

CANCER DRUG PROVES DEADLY

28 10 02

On the weekend the government in Japan announced that the
fluorophenyl-containing anticancer drug "Iressa" had caused 39 deaths, out of 125 "side-effects" reported - as of Saturday, Oct. 26.

Iressa has also been linked to 86 cases of serious lung disease
including interstitial pneumonia. Liver inflammation was commonly seen.

Iressa has been taken by approximately 10,000 people in Japan since it was approved a few months ago for the treatment of lung cancer. The drug has been on the market only since July 2002.

Although not yet approved in the US, over 11,000 patients in the US have received the drug, according to AstraZeneca documents.

Iressa (aka Gefitinib or Z-1839) is the first of a new class of drugs
designed to inhibit the epidermal growth factor (EGF) which is
over-expressed in numerous cancers.

Iressa had been "fast-tracked" for approval in Japan where it became the second fastest drug approval ever. The drug is made by Europe's
second-biggest drugmaker, AstraZeneca, who had anticipated worldwide sales of $1 billion a year for the drug. AstraZeneca also makes the breast cancer drug tamoxifen which can cause uterine cancer.

The drug was to be a major player in the world wide market for
lung-cancer treatment which is set to skyrocket from its present $1.6
billion to $ 8 billion in 2011.

On Oct. 15, AstraZeneca was instructed by Japan's Health, Labor and Welfare ministry to inform medical institutions of the new knowledge on the safety of the drug.

The company then claimed only 11 deaths out of 22 total severe side effects, although the drug's importer knew that at least 27 people had died and 69 had suffered side-effects.

At a press-conference later that day, AstraZeneca raised its figures to
26 affected patients, including 13 deaths.

The ministry in Japan conducted its own review and found more deaths which had not been reported.

When challenged on its false figures, AstraZeneca pointed out that
Japan's Pharmaceutical Affairs Law requires pharmaceutical companies to report any significant side effects of its drugs to the ministry within 30 days of the company being informed of such cases, admitting that it had only reported cases "close to the due date".

"It was an inappropriate decision," AstraZeneca spokeswoman Fumiko Muramoto said.

Earlier, on August 19th, 2002 the financial magazine Forbes reported
that AstraZeneca shares went down 16% after the company was forced to announce that the drug had NOT helped lung-cancer patients when combined with chemotherapy.

Related articles:

See PFPC: Fluoride in Drugs
http://64.177.90.157/pfpc/html/f-_in_drugs.html

AstraZeneca backs Iressa after more deaths"
Forbes/Reuters, Oct.27, 2002
http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2002/10/27/rtr767593.html

Sources:

"AstraZeneca files Iressa for FDA approval for cancer therapy"
Reuters News, Aug.7 (2002)

"AstraZeneca Drug Trial Fails, Shares Down"
Reuter's Business Report, Aug. 19 (2002)

"Side effects of AstraZeneca anticancer drug kills 39 in Japan"
Associated Press - Oct. 27, 2002

"26 more anticancer drug deaths reported"
Daily Yomiuri (Japan) - Oct. 28, 2002

Women 'over-estimate breast cancer risk' and should get advice before getting mastectomies

15 10 02

Some women with suspected cancer may have had their breasts removed needlessly a study suggests. Researchers in Canada have found that women significantly overestimate their risks of developing the disease. They believe some women may agree too easily to surgery to remove their breasts in an effort to reduce their chances of developing cancer.

The researchers described the findings as "troubling" and urged hospitals to offer counselling to patients to ensure they made the correct decision.

Professor Kelly Metcalfe and colleagues at the University of Toronto examined the cases of 75 women who had both breasts removed between 1991 and 2000.

Each woman provided detailed histories of the number and type of cancer within their families and estimated their chances of developing breast cancer.

High risk

Almost all of the women significantly overestimated their risk.

One in three suggested they were 100% likely to develop the disease. Overall the average risk was estimated at 76%.

After surgery, the women said their chances of developing breast cancer had dropped to 11%.

However, nobody is 100% certain to develop breast cancer - not even those carrying the genes that have been linked to the disease. The highest risk is usually in the region of 80%.

Calculations by the researchers suggested that the vast majority of women in the study only had a 17% chance of developing breast cancer, based on family medical history.

Even those who said they carried the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes had a 59% risk.

"It's concerning that they thought their risk was that high," said Professor Metcalfe.

"These women are somehow getting the idea that they're at high risk of developing breast cancer and they're opting for prophylactic bilateral mastectomies when perhaps they shouldn't be.

"We don't know what is driving these perceptions, whether it's from the media, their families or physicians. But it is troubling."

Professor Metcalfe suggested that women considering surgery should undergo formal genetic counselling, which examines the likelihood of developing disease based on family-medical history.

"Previous research has shown that women come into genetic clinics thinking they're at really high risk then go away with a better understanding of what their risk actually is after speaking with trained professionals.

"Genetic counselling helps women make an informed choice."

Changed times

But Dr Michelle Barclay of UK charity Breakthrough Breastcancer said the findings may not be relevant today. "This study has been done before the BRCA genes were identified. I don't think you can compare what happened then to what happens today," she told BBC News Online.

"In the UK, women get very thorough counselling before they have surgery. I don't think any doctor would let a woman have this operation if they felt they didn't know what they were letting themselves into."

Carbs Can Cause Pancreatic Cancer in Women
FULL TEXT: http://mercola.com/2002/sep/18/carbohydrates.htm

By Dr. Joseph Mercola 18 09 02

A diet high in white bread, white rice and potatoes puts women at much higher risk of pancreatic cancer--especially if they are overweight and don't do adequate exercise.

Previously, the only known risk factor for pancreatic cancer, which kills 30,000 people a year in the United States, was smoking. The researchers found that the risk for women who are both overweight and sedentary is 2.5 times higher.

What role does diet and insulin have in the increased risk of pancreatic cancer?

The researcher's presumption is that being obese, a sedentary lifestyle, a diet high in sugars all increase insulin levels. Insulin production is one of the pancreas' main functions and is used by the body to process blood sugar.

In the laboratory, insulin promotes the growth of pancreatic cancer cells. The researchers suspect that body states that maintain high levels of insulin increase pancreatic cancer's ability to survive and grow. Researchers now believe that up to a third of all cancers may be caused by diet and lifestyle.

National Cancer Inst 2002 September 4;94(17):1293-300

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

This is not a new association! It's just now published in the National Cancer Institute's journal. I posted the following over a year ago:

These articles are particularly important, as pancreatic cancer is a devastating and fatal cancer. It affects nearly 30,000 Americans a year and has an extremely low survival rate. Most traditional approaches fail and the person has usually passed on within six months.

It's very clear that sugar will increase your risk of cancer. That is well documented by the articles below, but not commonly appreciated by most physicians.

What is becoming increasingly established is that exercise will also lower your risk of cancer.

My guess is, as the article suggests, this is primarily mediated through exercise's effects on insulin levels.

Insulin seems to be one of the main drivers for cancer. So if you want to prevent cancer, or want to treat cancer, it is absolutely imperative that you keep insulin levels as low as possible. Following the eating plan is an effective way to do this.

Related Articles See: http://mercola.com/2002/sep/18/carbohydrates.htm

Sugar and No Exercise Increase Pancreatic Cancer

Sugar and Cancer

Exercise Decreases Death From All Causes

Exercise and Cancer

Lower Your Grains & Lower Your Insulin Levels! A Novel Way To Treat Hypoglycemia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MICROWAVE ALERT (14 08 02)

This is a condensed version of an article by Jule Klotter from the University of California Davis Medical Center:

As a 7th grade student, Claire Nelson learned that di(ethylhexyl)adepate(DEHA), considered a carcinogen, is found in plastic wrap. She also learned that the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] had never studied the effect of microwave cooking on plastic-wrapped food.
Claire began to wonder " Can cancer-causing particles seep into food covered with plastic wrap while it is being mirowaved?"Three years later with encouragement from her high school science teacher, Claire set out to test what the FDA had not with the help of Jon Wilkes at the National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson Arkansas.
The experiments, involved microwaving plastic wrap in virgin olive oil. Claire tested four different plastic wraps and "found not just the carcinogens, but also xenoestrogen was migrating" [into the oil] .Xenoestrogens are linked with low sperm counts in men and breast cancer in women.
An article in Options reported that "her analysis found that DEHA was migrating into the oil at between 200 parts and 500 parts per million. The FDA standard is 0.05 parts per billion." That's 10,000,000 times the FDA limits. Her summarized results have been published in science journals. For her research Claire received many awards from the scientific world.
Dr Edward Fujimoto head of the Wellness Program from Castle Hospital also warns against heating our foods in microwaves using plastic containers.This applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat and plastic releases dioxins into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Dioxins are
carcinogens and highly toxic to the cells of the body. Instead he recommends using glass,[pyrex] Corning Ware or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results without the dioxins. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else.
Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in or coating the paper.
Just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He said we might remember why many of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons. To add to this: Saran wrap placed over food as they are nuked, with high heat, actually drips poisonous toxins into the food. Use paper towel instead.

RISKS OF MAMMOGRAPHY
ONE SET OF MAMMOGRAMS = 1000 CHEST X-RAYS
By Dr. Joseph Mercola

http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/mammography.htm

Recent confirmation by Danish researchers of longstanding evidence on the ineffectiveness of screening mammography has been greeted by extensive nationwide headlines. Entirely missing from this coverage, however, has been any reference to the well-documented dangers of mammography.
Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for premenopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray.
The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening. These risks are even greater for younger women subject to "baseline screening."
Radiation risks are some four-fold greater for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers diagnosed annually.
Since 1928, physicians have been warned to handle "cancerous breasts with care -- for fear of accidentally disseminating cells" and spreading the cancer. Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful breast compression, particularly in premenopausal women, which could lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small undetected breast cancers.
Missed cancers are common in premenopausal women owing to their dense breasts, and also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy.
Mistakenly diagnosed cancers are common. For women with multiple risk factors including a strong family history and early menarche -- just those strongly urged to have annual mammograms -- the cumulative risks of false positives can reach as high as 100 percent over a decade's screening.
The widespread acceptance of screening has lead to overdiagnosis of pre-invasive cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ), sometimes treated radically by mastectomy and radiation, and even chemotherapy.
As increasing numbers of premenopausal women are responding to aggressively promoted screening, imaging centers are becoming flooded. Resultingly, patients referred for diagnostic mammography are now experiencing potentially dangerous delays, up to several months, before they can be examined.
The dangers and unreliability of screening are compounded by its growing and inflationary costs. Screening all premenopausal women would cost $2.5 billion annually, about 14 percent of estimated Medicare spending on prescription drugs.
These costs would be increased some fourfold if the highly profitable industry, enthusiastically supported by radiologists, succeeds in replacing film machines, costing about $100,000 each, with the latest high-tech digital machines recently approved by the FDA, costing about $400,000 each, for which there is no evidence of improved effectiveness.
The ineffectiveness and dangers of mammography pose an agonizing dilemma for the millions of women anxious for reassurance of early detection of breast cancer. However, the dilemma is more apparent than real.
As proven by a September 2000 publication, based on a unique large-scale screening study by University of Toronto epidemiologists, monthly breast self-examination (BSE) following brief training, coupled with annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health care professional, is at least as effective as mammography in detecting early tumors, and also safe.
National networks of BSE and CBE clinics staffed by trained nurses should be established to replace screening mammography. Apart from their minimal costs, such clinics would empower women and free them from increasing dependence on industrialized medicine and its complicit medical institutions.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Professor Emeritus Environmental and Occupational Medicine Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
312-996-2297
Web site: http://www.preventcancer.com
For further details and supporting documentation, see "Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective and Practical Alternative," by Samuel S. Epstein, Barbara Seaman and Rosalie Bertell, International Journal of Health Services, volume 31(3):605-615, 2001.

Related Articles:
Expert Panel Cites Doubts on Mammograms
X-Rays, Cancer and Heart Disease

CBC REPORT RAISES CRITICAL ETHICAL QUESTIONS

CBC Newsworld did a special feature on childhood cancer (Jan. 24, 2001) that revealed the physical and highly traumatic consequences of conventional treatment of cancer on both the children and their families. The program pointed out that one quarter of the young cancer victims die, but that most of the survivors suffer for the rest of their lives from the effects of radiation and chemotherapy. These types of treatment can prove to be as deadly as the disease itself, either at the time of the treatment or later in life. Common effects include brain damage, which may manifest itself in loss of intelligence, balance and mobility. Other effects are heart damage and secondary cancers which may prove to be even deadlier than the initial cancer. As one doctor pointed out: "we are walking a tightrope between cancer and treatment."
To see these children (some as young as one year) weep, their hair and dignity gone, their bodies racked by pain and nausea is a very sad sight. Their suffering defies description as they are subjected to these barbaric procedures that assault their already seriously weakened immune system, thereby making them even more susceptible to other physical failures.
As I point out in my book The Cancer Conspiracy, studies have shown that most doctors would refuse radiation or chemotherapy if THEY or any member of their family were terminal cancer patients.

All this raises two critical questions:

1. Is treatment justifiable when it either means intensifying the suffering or prolonging the agony, especially for young children who are given no say in the matter?

2. Why does the medical establishment subject terminal cancer patients to these horrific treatments which most doctors reject for themselves?

CANCER INDUSTRY PROTECTS ITS TURF

For those who are still not convinced that the cancer industry vigorously opposes non-conventional cancer treatments no matter how effective, visit this web site and its links:

http://remissions.org

TAMOXIFEN ALERT

Marketing tamoxifen is a multi-billion dollar business. Small wonder then that women are urged to take it both to treat breast cancer and to prevent it. Little if anything is said about the risks of this toxic drug. Now you can learn more about this potentially lethal drug by visiting the following web site: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/may99-cover.html

ENVIRONMENT KEY CANCER CAUSE

By John J. Moelaert, Editor

It's a good feeling to be vindicated no matter how long it takes. For the past 20 years I have pointed out that the main reasons for the increasing incidence of cancer are the growing number of carcinogens pumped into our air, water, soil and food. This view is shared by some courageous scientists like Dr. Samuel Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer.
The Cancer Establishment on the other hand maintains our genes are largely to blame. Blame the victim in other words instead of the corporate criminals who are responsible for the cancer epidemic and governments allowing it.
Now a major study, published July 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine, provides evidence that indeed the environment is the main culprit.
Consider the following: while smoking is very much on the decline in the industrialized world, lung cancer rates are up. More disturbing, the industrialized world with only 20 per cent of the world's population has more than 50 per cent of the world's cancer victims.

For a detailed report visit the following web site:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4040281,00.html

DR. EPSTEIN ENDORSES CANCER CONSPIRACY

One of the world's best-known cancer specialists, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein on May 30 endorsed my book The Cancer Conspiracy as follows: "Moelaert has somehow managed to pack a great deal of useful information on the science and politics of cancer, including how to reduce risks of cancer, into a small and highly reader-friendly monograph. He is to be warmly congratulated."
Dr. Epstein is the author of The Politics of Cancer(1978) and The Politics of Cancer Revisited (1998) and specializes in linking environmental hazards to increasing cancer rates. He joins two other well-known doctors in endorsing The Cancer Conspiracy: Dr. Abram Hoffer, co-founder with Dr. Linus Pauling of orthomolecular medicine and Dr. Zoltan Rona, one of Canada's foremost experts on nutritional and preventive therapies.
To learn more about Dr. Epstein's work visit: http://www.preventcancer.com

The Cancer Conspiracy is a plain-English introduction to the nature, causes, prevention and especially the politics of cancer. Its contents has been thoroughly researched and its sources are clearly identified.
Its consise format makes it quick to read and easy to afford. It was published in July, 1999 and is now in its fourth printing. Copies have been sold across Canada and the US and as far away as England, China and Chile.

Please e-mail your comments about UPDATES to: cancerconspiracy@shaw.ca