Category Archives: Cancer research

Another Lancet chemophobic crackup

The people at Lancet have gone off their meds again.

Continue reading

About these ads

Organic Food is Healthier–right chemophobes?

So let’s consider organic food and how it might rate on the “healthy” scale.

Continue reading

From the sounds too good to be true department

Exact Sciences Corp. (Nasdaq: EXAS) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee determined by a unanimous vote of 10 to zero that Exact Sciences has demonstrated safety, effectiveness and a favorable risk benefit profile of Cologuard ®, the company’s stool-based DNA (sDNA), non-invasive colorectal cancer screening test.

Reiki–Try Some Magic

I am an ignorant person, I will admit.

Continue reading

The viral test and the Pap Test–Complementary

One more time. Papilloma virus is very much a player in cervical cancer, and it has an impact of significance in some other cancers.

Continue reading

New Treatment for Esophageal Cancer–Cool

In the past cancer of the esophagus was a difficult and problematic cancer to treat. This is a breakthrough.

Continue reading

Markers for Leukemia

A study that shows that Chronic Lymphocyte Leukemia CLL has a marker.

Continue reading

Cancer–scary

In the recent past Milloy and I looked into the irresponsible overdiagnosis of cancers of the skin.

Continue reading

Ovarian Cancer Risk

The BRCA marker for risk of ovarian cancer is reported by oncologists to be compelling.

Continue reading

Chemophobe Alert from Human Insurance Co

I friend sent me this stupid public relations release from Humana on another cancer scare. Thanks Jeff. Jeff get’s his health insurance from Humana.

Continue reading

Caramel Cancer Scare

Here we go again. Colas have color, makes them more attractive for the consumer.

As we all know toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents–not a reliable measure.

But they can still make crazy claims.

http://acsh.org/2014/01/go-another-phony-chemical-scare-4-methylimidazole-4-mei-get-ready-laugh/

Computer Plant Chemicals may cause Cancer

Read this and consider the rash of chemophobe anxiety attacks that are coming.

The study didn’t find cancer patterns, but the cleaning chemicals used “cause cancer.”

And the Key–IBM has a deep pocket.

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Health-Expert-239321531.html

You know what cancer causing and carcinogenic mean–rats and mice bred to have tumors, then exposed to just less than lethal levels of the target chemical, had increased rates of tumors. That’s the usual EPA “cancer” and “carcinogen” research.

This is going to make some lawyers some money, somewhere, now IBM employees will suffer fear, maybe even pre, post or anticipated traumatic stress disorder or panic attacks? And other tech companies use the same chemicals? Shaaaazaaam or is it Ka ching.

What Cancer Epidemic?

Every place I have lived people claimed some kind of Cancer epidemic.

Cancer is a disease of the aged, and the common element of the cells is multiploidy or multiples of the normal genome compliment.

Cancer is on the decline inspite of the EPA claim that they find carcinogens everywhere.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.28509/abstract

From the National Cancer Institute’s article

For the past two decades, both the incidence and mortality of cancer in America has been in decline. Earlier, in the 1990s, the rate of decline was quite rapid, all things considered, largely due to rather astounding reductions in smoking that followed the first Surgeon General’s report in 1964 (cancers from smoking both develop over at least a decade or more, and decline with a similar lag period after quitting).

A new report published in the journal Cancer documents the continuation of this salutary trend. However, the rate of reduction in both death and incidence (new cancers) has slowed quite a bit, again owing largely to the slower fall in smoking rates over the past 10 years or so.

From 2001 through 2010, death rates for all cancers combined decreased by 1.8 percent a year among men and by 1.4 percent a year among women, according to the joint report from some of the nation’s top cancer institutions (including the CDC, the NCI and the American Cancer Society).

“The four major cancers — lung, colorectal, breast and prostate — represent over two-thirds of the decline,” study author Brenda Edwards, a senior advisor for cancer surveillance at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, told HealthDay News.

Let’s see, EPA says cancer is a big problem, and air as well as every other thing they have identified as a carcinogen in their silly rat tests is raising havoc int he population, but the NCI says that cancer is in decline.

Maybe we should reconsider the EPA effort to take us back to those good old days?

Cancer Epidemic? Not

The rate of cancer is down–but I thought it was up?

Continue reading

Second hand smoke may stink, but yet another study debunks the cancer issue

Courtesy of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute:
“A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.

Continue reading

Rare childhood cancer proves what?

This Australian News breathless announcement is a joke.

Continue reading

Cancer to be redefined

The working group for the National Cancer Institute has proposed that the term “cancer” be redefined to mean only lesions likely to kill a patient if untreated. Continue reading

Seniors more vulnerable under Obamacare

Here are two stories the mainstream media isn’t jumping all over themselves to report. Continue reading

IBM puts supercomputer to work on cancer

Much less awesome than it sounds. Curing a cancer is not a function of crunching data of dubious quality. Continue reading

Shock study: Chemotherapy can backfire, make cancer worse by triggering tumor growth

Well, no a really a “shock.” Scientists have known for decades that chemotherapy drugs are carcinogens themselves. Continue reading