Category Archives: Cancer research

Ductal Breast Cancer and prophylactic mastectomy–maybe not so good

More info on the nature of Ductal in Situ breast cancer.

It’s kinda like the loosey goosey way that people talk about skin cancers–and to impress people with skin cancer risk sometimes the public information gets deceptive to make a point. Epidemic this and that is too much a part of public pronouncements.

There’s malignancy that is not so virulent. Not all cancers come out of the same bottle. Apparently ductal in situ is considered one of those less virulent forms but the precautionary principle approach results in aggressive surgical therapy.

Below ACSH provides a review of recent findings.

In fact we are probably killing off potential cancers in our body all the time.

http://acsh.org/2015/08/more-data-says-not-to-worry-about-dcis/

The search for magic food or drink, now the magic coffee–and colon cancer

This kind of observational nonsense is always in play in the media.

So What’s real, meaningful and what’s just randomness? Calling all witch doctors.

Coffee, colon cancer survival linked, study suggests
The “Well” blog of the New York Times (8/18, Rabin) reports that a study published Monday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that colon cancer patients who consumed higher volumes of coffee each day “had a far lower risk of dying or having their cancer return than those who did not drink coffee.” The study showed that “significant benefits” began with two or three daily cups of coffee, and patients who consumed four or more each day “had half the rate of recurrence or death than noncoffee drinkers.”

On its website, NBC News (8/18, Fox) reports that Dr, Charles Fuchs of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute said that the study of just under 1,000 patients found that “Those who drank coffee regularly had a better disease-free survival, meaning they had a lower rate of having their cancer recur or of dying.” He added that patients who drank other caffeinated beverages like soda had “a poorer outcome,” and decaf coffee and tea did not produce the same benefits. NBC News notes that the study was funded by the National Cancer Institute.

Screening mammography has no impact on Breast CA mortality

Well that means we don’t know something.

Wouldn’t be the first time. I still say in women at risk because of family history, screening mammography probably offers some benefit. Breast self exam is still extremely helpful.

http://acsh.org/2015/07/screening-for-breast-cancer-how-useful-is-it/

Environmental Working Group (EWG) needs to take their meds

This is getting out of control–why do these chemophobes get to be so crazy?

Josh Blooms lights a flare–but we all need to be aware of the idiocy.

Continue reading

Gorski exposes the cruel nature of Adams and his chemophobe tirades

So Adams blames cancer survivors for taking chemotherapy and of course advocates a “natural” method.

Continue reading

Beware the Melanoma machine

Dermatologists hate the sun, they hate the sun–go to a dermatologist convention and see pasty faced people with hats on indoors.

Melanoma comes in many flavors, and the most benign flavor is getting diagnosed more because of a plethora of people who are afraid and docs ready to biopsy.

Do you really think the CDC is telling the truth about the rate of Melanoma, apples to apples?

Do you think the CDC doesn’t have a dog in the fight to scare people.

Oh, and did you read the recent report that sunscreens don’t prevent Melanoma?

And are you prepared to accept the idea that all melanomas are equally malignant and invasive.

And would you believe that the counts are sometimes puffed up by including other types of skin cancers when officials want to scare people. And did you know that squamous cell and basal cell skin cancers are only rarely invasive and deadly? Malignant melanoma can be a very bad and virulent skin cancer, no doubt.

Here’s the AMA news item on the report from the CDC.

CDC: Incidence of melanoma has doubled in the US in the last 30 years.
The Los Angeles Times (6/3, Kaplan) “Science Now” blog reports that “the incidence of melanoma…has doubled in the U.S. in the last 30 years and is on track to remain high unless Americans take more precautions to protect themselves from ultraviolet radiation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said” yesterday. The “Vital Signs study” was “published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.” The blog adds that while “Melanomas account for only 2% of skin cancers…they are the deadliest kind, according to the National Cancer Institute.”

On its website, CBS News (6/3, Cohen) reports that in a statement, Dr. Lisa Richardson, the director of the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, said, “If we take action now, we can prevent hundreds of thousands of new cases of skin cancers, including melanoma, and save billions of dollars in medical costs.”

Melanoma rates up among US children, young adults. Health Day (6/3, Dallas) reports that research indicates that “melanoma…has increased by 250 percent among U.S. children and young adults since the 1970s.” The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Melanoma has attracted our attention before. Another scaremonger campaign reinforced by physicians with an agenda.

You would think melanoma is mowing people down–not so.

A JS archive on the issue:

http://junkscience.com/?s=melanoma

Work by an honest toxicologist–Ed Calabrese

Ed Calabrese is a prominent and contrarian toxicologist who adheres to the rule the dose makes the poison (or the carcinogen).

He also is an eloquent advocate for the concept of hormesis–low doses can have beneficial effects for a substance that may be toxic or eve lethal at high doses.

Continue reading